Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63

Thread: Did I get my rights violated?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    I realize this is not a legal advice type site, however, I figure that the regulars on here could at least tell me if could perhaps have a case and if I might pursue this.

    I have broken this down to 3 parts because it is long. The stop, the violation, and the resolution. If you want to skip to the meat, then see part two. Also I wanted to write out all the details of this while they are still very fresh on my mind. Also this post is long because I don’t know what details are important or not.

    Sept 29th, 2009. 630pm, Slidell, La, north Hwy 11 near I-12.
    1. the stop
    I am mentioning this due to the very odd circumstances under which I was pulled over. It may or may not be pertinent to the case.
    I was traveling home from work on I-12 east about 6:20pm, I pass a state trooper stopped on the side around the Lacombe exit and noticed that he came onto the interstate behind me, following a half mile back. Over the next mile I watched to see if he was coming to pull me over, but he was lagging too far back. About 5 miles ahead I took the hwy 11 exit. At this point the trooper was very close behind me as we go down the ramp. At the bottom of the ramp I stopped at the light to make a left turn, and he proceeded to the right onto south hwy11. While waiting at the light, I see the same trooper
    (at least I think it’s the same) pass in front of me now heading north. once the light changed and I made the left, the trooper was on the side of the road under the interstate. As I passed him he pulled out onto Hwy 11 and turned on his lights. I pulled over just 200 yards ahead turned off the engine. The trooper very quickly opened his door and stepped out, from his door of his car ordered me out of the Jeep.

    2. the search violation
    as soon as I was at the back of my Jeep the officer informed me that the reason he stopped me was because "when I ran your plates, they came back expired in January, but I can see the sticker on the plate says November". With a bit closer look we both could see that the tiny renewal sticker had my same plate numbers matching my plates and has NOV in lager letters. At this point the officer asked for my drivers license and if I had any weapons, guns or knifes. I said "yes I have 2 knifes on me and a gun in the vehicle" first thing he had me do was turn and face his car, hands on the hood, and did a quick pat down removing one knife from its belt holder and a pat down of my left front pocket. I told him it was a small "grand-daddy pocket knife" and he didn’t reach into my pocket for it. At this point he asked where in the vehicle my gun was. I told him it is in a gun case behind the drivers seat. (original case from the store with the clips, holster, and easy loader) in the same location is a ammo box and targets rolled up from my last trip to the range. He asked if the case was locked, "no" and asked if the gun was loaded, "yes". He moved me to a position in front of his car dash cam (I assume that was why he moved me) before he went to my Jeep. he opened the drivers door, hit the door unlock switch, and opened the back door, and returned to his hood with the case. When he opened the case, to his dismay and my terrible surprise, the gun was not there! "I must have it in my glove box." I said. He walked up the passenger side of my Jeep and opened that door. He asked me from there "how do you open this", in this time some papers and trash fell out onto the ground and he had to stop to pick them up and put them back in. This moment gave me the presence of mind to think of my rights, he should have not opened that door, I knew that trash (coke cans and old bills) would fall out. He was perturbed and began walking back. The key to the glove box was in my pocket. I said "the glove box is locked?, well then the gun is definitely in there." He asked for me to give him my keys. At this time I said "I do not consent to any search of my vehicle." I don’t remember at this point if he asked me anything else before he radio for back-up, but within a minute he stepped to the back of his car and made a 2-3 minute cell phone call. He returned to me, asking several "stall questions". "where you coming from, where you going", ect.

    At this point had my rights been violated? did he need to ask permission even before going in my backseat to get the gun case? had I given him any probable cause? NO! had I given him any implied consent?(is there even such a thing?) He never asked, and was never granted verbal permission to go into any of the 3 doors he opened.

    3. the Resolution, they let me go.
    In about 5 minutes two St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Officers arrived. One officer came near me, but never spoke to me the whole time. The other STPSO and the State trooper had a 3-4 minute conversation out of ear range. The Sheriff's officer then moved his vehicle in front of the state cruiser car, and then he and the State Trooper approached me. The trooper informed me that "at this point this is no longer my seen, he is in charge", indicating the Sheriff’s Officer. He first asked me "where is the gun?" then "why is it not out here in our possession?" he needed to hear me say the line. So I gave him the line that "I don't consent to the search" He said that his problem with the situation was that I gave up the case but had not been truthful, but then I wouldn't give up the gun. He then tried this line on me, "do you have any drugs in the car? if you do its ok, just tell me now and it will be ok, if you just tell me now. If I find it later we have a problem". HAHA ! I know that line kind of like the one line "bet I can tell you where you got them shoes at", all too well. and I of course tell him "NO, no drugs.", which he's probably heard before as well. He then told me one thing that reassured me about the situation and my rights, "so you are gonna play the good citizen excersizing your rights, thats fine I have no problem with that, but I've got to be the good officer and do my job." He told me that he's calling in a K-9 unit to walk the car. He told me that if he does hit on the car, he will then have the probable cause to search. At this time he calls over his radio briefly, then he starts with the "stall questions". In this time he notices my uniform and asked if I knew a particular person that I worked with many years ago. I said I did know Mr. Don and his son Chad also worked with me. He said he has known them both well for many years, as I have also. Several minutes pass.
    The stall questions slow down and then makes a cell phone call. This call I could hear, one side of. "hey, where are you?", "oh.." , "well I have one stopped here can you get over here?" "oh..." then I think he turned away. From that call I surmised that the K-9 unit was not near and not on the way...
    The officer then started with a couple other questions while looking at the gun case.
    "can I look in here?" -sure you can, just spare clips and clip holder.
    "do you have a permit for the gun?" -which I do not have a CCW permit.
    "what kind of gun is it?" -It's a Springfield XD-40, if he looked at the case it's written right there.
    "Is it registered to you?" -Yes, and the papers are also right there in the case.
    "how much did it cost?, where did you get it?" about $525 from a dealer in Covington.
    At this point I realize these are all just stall questions and going no where and knowing the K9 is not in route and I asked "am I free to go?" I think the officer was a little taken back and changed his line of questioning. "have you ever been arrested?" I replied, "never". "Never? are you sure about that?" I haven't even had a parking ticket in 5 years, I'm super clean. He had my license and checked on his radio again. In another minute or so he came back to me and gave me his parting speech. It included
    "you didn't lie to me about your arrest record", "extend you some courtesy, because we know some same people." and "if this happens again, it won't end this way again", and he asked the State Trooper if he wanted to issue any citations. The State Trooper never even asked for my insurance or registration from the beginning. He said that there must have been a database error about my plates being expired in January and that it's obvious that they check out ok. (by the little renewal sticker on the plate? ? ? again, he never saw registration or insurance) He said to the S.T.P.S.O. "I think we have detained him long enough." Within another minute they put my knife, gun case, and my drivers license in my jeep and I was on my way home. Detained probably 30 minutes total.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    near Bossier City, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    You're gonna get some very varied opinions on here. I advise you to talk to a lawyer about it (which shouldn't cost you anything).

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    one thing I was advised on was this, First thing she advised me was to write every detail down, every piece of conversation you can remember, and do it tonight, don't sleep on it, then call someone else in the morning

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    "do you have a permit for the gun?" -which I do not have a CCW permit.
    "what kind of gun is it?" -It's a Springfield XD-40, if he looked at the case it's written right there.
    "Is it registered to you?" -Yes, and the papers are also right there in the case


    That part is BS, we don't have permits for guns in Louisiana and if you had a CHP it shouldn't matter you were not CC. And we don't register guns in LA.

    Sounds like a big fishing trip that they didn't catch anything. Don't know why the Trooper handed off the stop. Doesn't sound right to me.

    Good luck with it if all happened like you wrote.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    Post imported post

    Of course speak to a lawyer... but lawyers should not be relied upon completely. YOU need to study the law relevant to your case.

    It's long been established that in the name "safety" an officer may temporarily disarm someone while questioning / investigating a "crime". If an LEO sees a weapon in your car while detaining you, he may retrieve and hold it until the stop is complete. Telling him you have a gun in the car gives them the same legal authority. If you do not have a CC permit then you have NO obligation to tell an LEO that there is a gun in your car. You can refuse to answer the question... and that is NOT the same as saying yes.

    What is at issue here is if the reason for the stop, expired registration, allowed the LEO to detain you as long as he did? In other words, is there a reason to believe that because you have a possible expired registration would this lead to a reasonable suspicion that you posses narcotics? Does the gun in the car give similar reasonable suspicion. If "no" then the LEO should have ceased detaining you at the time the registration issue was resolved. Did he?

    While it is important that an officer's safety be considered, it is a bit of a stretch to allow them to enter a private automobile to retrieve a firearm when in fact the car's occupant has already been removed and is detained at a safe distance. There have been a number of recent court decisions relevant to this including the one I posted below. If you research these cases yourself, you can save some attorney’s fees because the lawyer doesn't have to spend the time to do it.

    Also, if you think an officer acted outside of his bounds then report it to the appropriate internal affairs division. Most departments take these reports very seriously and is one avenue the public has to keep the LEO "in bounds". They are people too and can make mistakes



    This case is about search incident to arrest and is not "directly" relevant here... However, it shows that courts are looking at what is considered as "fearing for an officer's safety".
    Search incident of vehicle for driving on a suspended license that produced drugs was invalid under state constitution because it was not calculated to recover evidence of driving on a suspended license. Baniaga v. State, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 2013 (August 6, 2008):
    We conclude that Officer Ball's search of Baniaga's vehicle was not reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. Although Baniaga was under arrest for driving while suspended, the officer did not fear for his safety and there was no indication that Baniaga had engaged in drug activity. Moreover, Officer Ball admitted that he did not need to search the vehicle to preserve further evidence of Baniaga's licensure offense. Thus, we conclude that the search of Baniaga's vehicle violated the protections provided by Article I, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence stemming from the vehicle search. Thus, we reverse Baniaga's conviction for possession of cocaine and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate the conviction and sentence imposed thereon.


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    I don't think your rights were violated. When you declined consent to any searches they backed off. You invoked your rights properly to both officers and they respected your rights accordingly.

    The initial stop is questionable if your tags are OK but the trooper didn't ask for any supporting tag or insurance info. He was on a hunch and was proven wrong. Write a followup letter to his supervisor (provided you have his info) and remind them that inchoate hunches don't count when detaining someone (from Terry v. Ohio).

    Other than the above you did quite well.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    PM sent.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    I don't practice criminal law for the most part, but I think the officer probably violated your rights. It would, however, probably not be worth litigating as you didn't suffer any real injury as a result.

    What happened was a Terry stop. The officer suspected you of having an expired registration, but wasn't certain and stopped you to investigate (either that or the registration was a pretext, but pretextual stops are generally permissible). Upon stopping you, he asked you out of the vehicle and frisked you for his protection. All of this is perfectly legal.

    At this point, I think the officer started to go wrong. What he should have done is completed his investigation regarding the registration, and then, based on the results of that investigation, he should have either ticketed you, arrested you (assuming the law allows an arrest for an expired registration) or sent you on your way. If he had arrested you, he could have searched your vehicle as a search incident to arrest.

    Instead, the officer actually started fishing for other things to investigate -- firearms or drug charges. Unless he had some sort of reasonable, articulable suspicion that you had committed any firearms or drug crimes, he had no right to continue to detain you or to search your vehicle. I'm sure the officer would claim that you were "acting suspicious" or something or other, but his argument would be pretty weak. Also, a gun in a locked glove compartment was no threat to him, so there was no need to temporarily seize it. I think this is why the officers eventually backed off.

    In general, your expectation of privacy in your vehicle is considered weak by the courts, but the police can't simply start searching every vehicle they stop for a traffic violation, either. I think you acted properly overall and the police were overreaching.

    DISCLAIMER: This is all on the fly, so take this advice with a grain of salt. I am an attorney, but I'm not your attorney -- if you want to go anywhere with this, I'd advise you to consult your attorney.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    [Repeat - deleted]

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    georg jetson wrote:
    If you do not have a CC permit then you have NO obligation to tell an LEO that there is a gun in your car.
    Where does it say if you have a Concealed Handgun Permit you have to notify if you have a gun in the car?And not on your person.If it's locked in the glove compartment.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    Why did the Trooper hand his stop over to the locals???? You should have asked him at that point could you leave.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    Post imported post

    "Where does it say if you have a Concealed Handgun Permit you have to notify if you have a gun in the car?And not on your person.If it's locked in the glove compartment."

    Good question... I don't have a CC permit nor have I spent much time researching this question. My statement was not meant to imply that you indeed have a duty to tell the LEO that you have a gun in the glove compartment I do know that you are not required to answer any questions from an LEO at any time. Here's what I came up with in the last few minutes...

    RS 40:1379.3

    Section I(2)

    A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. <snip>

    This appears to indicate that notification is required ONLY if the weapon is a handgun and the permittee is concealing the firearm. However, the same statute states in section A(1)...

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the deputy secretary of public safety services of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall issue a concealed handgun permit to any citizen who qualifies for a permit under the provisions of this Section and may promulgate rules and adopt regulations regarding concealed handgun permits in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. The permit shall contain a permit number, expiration date, photograph, and the name, address, and date of birth of the permittee.

    I don't know what rules the deputy secretary has "promulgated" in addition to what is in the statute. If I were getting a CC permit I would definitely check...

    Also, have there been any La. state court cases which would set precedent for this sort of thing...

    The bottom line is that I didn't know if there is a requirement here for the CCers so I qualified my statement.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    I've had one for about 13 yrs.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    Quote from a St. Tammany sheriff's deputy---"We search every car we stop."

    This seems to be dept. policy of sorts and is probably illegal. I was recently stopped by the SO late at night for a defective taillight(it was). The first thing I was asked was"Do you have any guns or illegal things in your vehicle?" My answer was"No--nothing like that." Then the "Where are you coming from,where are you going and where do you live."

    Based on my broken taillight his initial stop was good--however once he explained why he stopped me there was no further mention of the defective light. The deputy began a "fishing" expedition explained above. He was cordial and professional--and satisfied he did not have a drunk or "bad" guy he sent me on my way. Total time for the stop was about 7-8 minutes.

    Based on my personal experience as a reserve for 16 yrs., I will be so bold as to say the trooper was "fishing" also. He fumbled the ball and tried to hand off to the SO. Not having anything to run with they tried more fishing with no success.

    The St. Tammany SO was a party to the illegal gun seizure law suit filed against the New Orleans PD subsequent to Katrina. They (as far as I can tell) also admitted that their actions were illegal and also agreed to cease such actions in the future. If this is the case then they would seem to be up to their old ways once again---just using different tactics.

    In discussing these types of stops with my attorney he has explained that any seizure of personal property from your auto must be related to the original reason for the stop---hence confusion over whether registration is current (and since it was you probably should have then been free to go) would not seem to justify searches for firearms contained in your vehicle as this is legal activity in Louisiana.

    Also see the 10th Circuit's recent decision(In New Mexico) which said the mere presence of a legally possessed firearm is not reason for the police to interface with a citizen.

    I strongly encourage you to consult with an attorney--also call the NRA to get the details of the settlement with the SO.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    Post imported post

    "Quote from a St. Tammany sheriff's deputy---"We search every car we stop.""


    A few words concerning this quote... LEO's lie... no disrespect intended and it's perfectly legal. They are trained to lie as an investigative tool. Whether right or wrong it’s a fact. The deputy making this statement is well within the law. However, if the department has this as a policy, then there are issues to deal with.

    Something to remember about whom to get "reliable" info from... YOUR attorney or YOU. These days each individual has almost all of the resources an attorney does. Most cities' libraries have a Westlaw subscription and most local ordinances and state statutes are online. If you want to know what a specific law enforcement department's policies are, there are lawful ways of doing so.

    Three groups of people you should NEVER rely on for any type of "legal" info...

    An LEO - they are not attorney’s and have no duty to explain the law to you. Lying is not illegal for them.

    A prosecutor - Their job is to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law and though they may have a duty not to mis-represent the law, they can cleverly mislead.

    A judge - though usually very knowledgeable about the law, their job is to ensure a fair and impartial proceeding. This does not include educating litigants. If you want to know the law, learn it before you get into the courtroom.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    The post appears to represent a 'hypothetical, sample exam question' resulting from a 4A civics or law lecture. There is the (1)involuntary legit traffic stop, (2) consensual encounter, (3) Terry (outside but not inside the pocket), (4) search of vehicle ceased when consent (if there was)revoked, (5) with more "fishing"by STPSOand (6) a request to leave (am I being detained?) granted. All in a perhaps reasonable time of thirty minutes?

    I don't see much for an attorney butTHIS may be more important to Slidell Jim(I spoke to him by phone). ---In the second paragraph, "... stop, the violation, and ...." Also, the second part, "2 the search violation ", may showHEbelieves his rights wereviolated before the actual posting of the question.What he thinks and believesis what's important. IMO

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    Jerry McBride wrote:
    (4) search of vehicle ceased when consent (if there was)revoked,
    I think the crux of this exists in the fact that the officer had been in my vehicle 3 times with out asking consent and without probable cause. The first time was entry to the drivers door to hit the unlock switch. The second time was to get the gun case from the rear drivers side floor board. I did not stop him the first two times. The third entry he stopped only because of the locked glove box. Only on returning from my vehicle to me the 3nd time and asking for the key in my pocket did he realize that consent was not obtained for, nor probable cause warranted for, the 3 previous entries into my vehicle.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    K.B.G wrote to me on Oct 1, 2009 at 1pm

    Going over the law briefly, I would say that what you experienced was likely an unlawful search, and possibly an unlawful stop as well. The only time that an officer can search containers (such as the box and your glove compartment) in an automobile without a warrant is when he has probable cause to arrest the occupant - you. Unless you or your vehicle matched a description that came up under wants or warrants, I'm not sure why there would be probable cause.

    It is possible that the officer could argue that his reasonable fear for his safety prompted a search limited to weapons, since he seems to have only looked in the places you indicated the gun might be found, but again, I don't know what would have given rise to a reasonable fear or suspicion in your case. The only way that a limited search for weapons or a full compartment search can be valid without a warrant is if it is consented to, and the consent must be voluntary. Voluntary consent does not need to be informed - in other words, the officer does not have to tell you that you have the right to withhold consent in order for consent to be considered voluntary and thus valid. However, in this case, it doesn't seem that the officer ever asked your permission, and merely submitting to authority does not count. His awareness that he needed your consent seems manifest in the fact that he ceased his search when you expressly told him that you did not give consent.

    All in all, it seems that for some reason, the police suspected that you might be concealing drugs or weapons and that you posed a potential threat to their safety. Whether this suspicion was reasonable seems questionable, and nothing in your story supports a higher finding of probable cause. So, on balance, I would say that yes, your rights were probably violated. What you can do about it? Consult a lawyer to bring a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation. What you would get out of it? A sense of satisfaction and the eternal hatred of the St. Tammany Parish Police and the state Highway Patrol. Mazel Tov.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    Slidell Jim wrote:
    K.B.G. wrote to me on Oct 1, 2009 at 1pm

    So, on balance, I would say that yes, your rights were probably violated. What you can do about it? Consult a lawyer to bring a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation. What you would get out of it? A sense of satisfaction and the eternal hatred of the St. Tammany Parish Police and the state Highway Patrol. Mazel Tov.
    That's about what I thought KBG. Unlike Mark's case from Gonzales, I was not arrested, I was not detained more than about 45 minutes, and I was not treated poorly or unprofessionally. And also with George Jetson's advise, I think I will file a complaint with the LASP internal affairs on Friday.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Jerry McBride wrote:
    What he thinks and believesis what's important. IMO
    Good luck.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Actually, it IS a judge's duty to educate you in his courtroom.

    It is HIS duty to ensure your rights are not violated. With things being the way they are today, I know this sounds radical, but that just goes to show how far we've strayed.

    Glad to see actual attorneys admitting their presence. Now, if just ONE of them would volunteer their services to REAL activists, progress can occur.
    Ok... would you care to site some law that would indicate what you say is true??

    Why do you think an attorney should volunteer their services?? Is there something wrong with your brain?? I don't mean to agitate anyone, but if you think someone educated in the law could help then by all means educate yourself in the law and then help

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    The word is "cite."


    Yep "cite"... that's it... good catch.

    and thanks for your time...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    I still want to know why the Trooper turned over HIS stop to the locals after he was finished.You shouldalso call LSP and ask.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    charlie12 wrote:
    I still want to know why the Trooper turned over HIS stop to the locals after he was finished.You shouldalso call LSP and ask
    This was because of one of two things. The trooper was a one year veteran on the force and unsure how to handle it so he called for backup (don't know why other troopers didn't respond) or he realized he was already in the wrong and was trying to cover his ass by getting his agency out of the situation completely.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    Submit an open records request (if there's such a thing in LA) to both agencies and see what comes back. Both should have filed reports and hopefully someone has a recording of the incident with video and don't forget to ask for radio transmissions.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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