• 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.

In a SD Situation - Rights Question

Citizen

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

killchain wrote:
SNIP It's happened quite often that statements and evidence collected prior to Miranda readings have been thrown out in court.

Hence the MIRANDA RULING.

WHERE IT HAPPENED.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

Man, you guys just can't stop fighting about anything, can you?
Thank you for linking to a source.

While helpful, I think that information, while not incorrect, is sufficiently incomplete to leave a mistaken impression.

I've read numerous court opinions where the suspects pre-Miranda comments ended up in evidence.

Miranda is clear. Policeare only required to give the Miranda Warning prior to questioning that occurs after a custodial seizure--an arrest. There have been plenty of cases where the questioning occurred in situations outside of a police interrogation room--cases where the court was deciding whether some other location or situation besides an interrogation room was "custodial" enough to be equivalent, thus triggering the Miranda Warning requirement. Was the small room off the airport concourse, surrounded by officers, while in hand-cuffs, but not yet told under arrest, sufficiently "custodial" in nature that a person should have been Mirandized? That sort of thing.

But, Miranda does not say that all questioning without the warning is unconstitutional. Nor does it say that all pre-warning statements and comments are inadmissable. Nor does Miranda require the warning during the questioning during a Terry detention. Not that I recall anyway.

Terry permits investigative questions, both during a consensual encounter and a detention. Although thesuspected citizendoes not have to answer, if the answers provide probable cause, is the person not subject to arrest? Arepolice during a Terry Stop/detention asking questions in order to either 1) dispel suspicion or 2) aquire from answers or evidence probable cause? (I know the answer, I just can't cite, thus cannot declare the law, thus I have to ask it as a question.)



Miranda: (this is a long opinion, but it is easy to read--little legalese or latin--and is well worth reading. It is very educational.)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html

Terry:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
 

Citizen

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

donsk16 wrote:
SNIP In reference to your statement number 2: When the LEO's interview you that night/day- simply saying "Tonight I was the the victim of a crime, and what I can tell you is they broke and entered and attempted to harm my family and I am pretty shook up from the whole experience, so I would like to go through the details with you at a future time when my mind is in a better state" be best? You are giving them a brief statement and you are cooperating, but doesn't say too much?
Whew! You ask meaty questions. I'm wearing out my keyboard. :) But, they are good questions!

You are now asking for legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

There is a fair amount of advice on this point available on the web. For myself, I plan to follow the advice of a fella with lots of courtroom experience and years as a cop--Massad Ayoob. He has a column in a couple gun magazines.

He suggests a simple declaration along the lines of:

"Officer, that man there (pointing) attacked me with that knife there (pointing) putting me in fear of my life. I shot him in self-defense. I will gladly sign a complaint. We all know this is a very serious situation. I will make a complete statement within 48 hours after having talked to my attorneys."

He also recommends pointing out evidence to the police so it doesn't get missed. My examples:

"See his footprints, where he came at me from those bushes right there."

"See my brass in a nice pattern here beside where I was standing."

"His accomplice ran back through those bushes. There may be blood on them."

"My defensive shooting happened right here; but I saw him run that way, and saw him ditch something, his knife maybe, in that storm drain over there."

Then shut the heck up. Politely. But shut up.
 

0V3RC10CK3D

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Why would they need to take your handgun for any sort of forensics or evidence if you admit, yea, I shot the guy, he broke into my house and assaulted me.

I don't see a need for them to take your gun and prove it was you when you clearly stated that you shot the guy.
 

Citizen

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

0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
Why would they need to take your handgun for any sort of forensics or evidence if you admit, yea, I shot the guy, he broke into my house and assaulted me.

I don't see a need for them to take your gun and prove it was you when you clearly stated that you shot the guy.

Because there is always the remote possibility that you might recant and there won't be any dishonest cops available to make up evidence against you?

:D
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
Why would they need to take your handgun for any sort of forensics or evidence if you admit, yea, I shot the guy, he broke into my house and assaulted me.

I don't see a need for them to take your gun and prove it was you when you clearly stated that you shot the guy.

Because if the prosecutor decides to file murder/manslaughter charges against you they want it as evidence. They have the authority to seize everything and anything that may be connected to a potential crime they are investigating.
 

Citizen

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

joeroket wrote:
0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
Why would they need to take your handgun for any sort of forensics or evidence if you admit, yea, I shot the guy, he broke into my house and assaulted me.

I don't see a need for them to take your gun and prove it was you when you clearly stated that you shot the guy.

Because if the prosecutor decides to file murder/manslaughter charges against you they want it as evidence. They have the authority to seize everything and anything that may be connected to a potential crime they are investigating.

Everything and anything connected to a potential crime they are investigating?

Cite, please.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
joeroket wrote:
0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
Why would they need to take your handgun for any sort of forensics or evidence if you admit, yea, I shot the guy, he broke into my house and assaulted me.

I don't see a need for them to take your gun and prove it was you when you clearly stated that you shot the guy.

Because if the prosecutor decides to file murder/manslaughter charges against you they want it as evidence. They have the authority to seize everything and anything that may be connected to a potential crime they are investigating.

Everything and anything connected to a potential crime they are investigating?

Cite, please.
OK I am not going to go dig through case law to get it but you know damned well they can. Let me rephrase my statement.

In the instance the OP has described they have the authority to seize any and all property that is directly related to the shooting. They may apply for a warrant that will increase their scope of search to include other items or areas that were not directly related during the initial investigation.

Is that better?
 

Johnny Law

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
462
Location
Puget Sound, ,
imported post

0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
Why would they need to take your handgun for any sort of forensics or evidence if you admit, yea, I shot the guy, he broke into my house and assaulted me.

I don't see a need for them to take your gun and prove it was you when you clearly stated that you shot the guy.
You've got to be joking, right? What makes you think that your words have any credibility? The fact that you spoke them? People LIE to the Police all the time, every day. PD's have the burden of proof, and can't afford to take Joe Blow's word for it. Any time it is shootinginvestigation, any and allitems directly related to the incidentcan/will be taken as evidence. The firearm will be ballistically tested to confirm which gun shot who etc. To not do this would be neglect of duty on the Officer's part.

Citizen wrote:
donsk16 wrote:
SNIP In reference to your statement number 2: When the LEO's interview you that night/day- simply saying "Tonight I was the the victim of a crime, and what I can tell you is they broke and entered and attempted to harm my family and I am pretty shook up from the whole experience, so I would like to go through the details with you at a future time when my mind is in a better state" be best? You are giving them a brief statement and you are cooperating, but doesn't say too much?

For myself, I plan to follow the advice of a fella with lots of courtroom experience and years as a cop--Massad Ayoob. He has a column in a couple gun magazines.

He suggests a simple declaration along the lines of:

"Officer, that man there (pointing) attacked me with that knife there (pointing) putting me in fear of my life. I shot him in self-defense. I will gladly sign a complaint. We all know this is a very serious situation. I will make a complete statement within 48 hours after having talked to my attorneys."
When you are being questioned about an incident, the Cops are trying to determine who did what, and who is telling the truth. If you choose to be short/vague (especially when innocent) you will likely leave enough unanswered issues as to justify your arrest. This is especially true if the other half (BG) is dead. The more you avoid the issues, the more guilty you will appear to the Officers, adding to their suspicions and PC.

In my opinion the ONLY time that it is wise to clam up is if you are GUILTY, because you would be spouting bs that will typically be disproven at the time, or later in the investigation.
 

Citizen

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

joeroket wrote:
Citizen wrote:
joeroket wrote:
0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
SNIP Why would they need to take your handgun...
SNIPThey have the authority to seize everything and anything that may be connected to a potential crime they are investigating.
Everything and anything connected to a potential crime they are investigating?

Cite, please.
OK I am not going to go dig through case law to get it but you know damned well they can. Let me rephrase my statement.

In the instance the OP has described they have the authority to seize any and all property that is directly related to the shooting. They may apply for a warrant that will increase their scope of search to include other items or areas that were not directly related during the initial investigation.

Is that better?

Without the citations, I am not going to say whether it is better.

It occurs to me that you need not confine your citations to court opinions or statutes. Forum rule #7 lists "newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc." as acceptable sources.

It doesn't matterif you and I know whether you statement of law is accurate. What matters iswhether the new guyssee a source they can use to sort it out for themselves. By "sort it out" I mean evaluate the accuracy of the numerous statements that can show up on a thread. Some totally wrong. Some off here and there. Some misleading because of the wording chosen by the poster.

In your post I was mainly concerned with the comprehensive words I italicized.

For example, what is the relationship, if any, between potential crime and probable cause? What is the relationship, if any, between potential crime and reasonable articulable suspicion? (rhetorical questions)

A couple other examples; again, rhetorical questions. Anything and everything. Meaning if the police, while investigating a noise complaint, see some marijuana (contraband) burning onthe kitchen table, they can warrantlessly seize the house, the pets, the TV?

These things involvethe 4th Amendment, reasonable searches and seizures, warrants, probable cause, and so forth. Weshould be educating the new guys in these terms, so they cansee what their rights are under the law (what's left of them, anyway).

Plus, there is another great reason to educate the new guys in the actual law. One of my favorite quotes. Its from a speech by Edmund Burke to Parliament just before the American Revolution.

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit...In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study...[T]his knowledge...is a formidable adversary to government. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze. (emphasis by Citizen)
 

Citizen

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

Johnny Law wrote:
Citizen wrote:
donsk16 wrote:
SNIP ...simply saying...be best?
SNIP For myself, I plan to follow the advice of a fella with lots of courtroom experience and years as a cop--Massad Ayoob.
When you are being questioned about an incident, the Cops are trying to determine who did what, and who is telling the truth. If you choose to be short/vague (especially when innocent) you will likely leave enough unanswered issues as to justify your arrest. This is especially true if the other half (BG) is dead. The more you avoid the issues, the more guilty you will appear to the Officers, adding to their suspicions and PC.

In my opinion the ONLY time that it is wise to clam up is if you are GUILTY, because you would be spouting bs that will typically be disproven at the time, or later in the investigation.

Thank you for the "law enforcement" perspective.It is entirely too short-sighted, dangerously so.

In the video linked below a current law professor who is aformer criminal attorney recommends silence, gives 8 reasons why, includingseveral examples of how even truthful statements by an innocent person can be used by the prosecution against him.

And it is not just that professor. In thevideo he quotes a US Supreme Court justice who said that any lawyer worth his salt will tell his client in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances. No uncertain terms. No statement. Under any circumstances.

And it is not just the professor and the Supreme Court justice. The second half of the video,after Prof. Duane finishes speaking,is a police detective who, when he arrives to the podium says,"Everything [Professor Duane]said was true, OK. And itwas right. And it was correct."

So, a law professor who is a former criminal attorney, a US Supreme Court justice, and a police detective all say don't talk to police.

Prof. Duane in his video also cites at least one, possibly two, US Supreme Court cases where the court, contrary to your so-called wisdom about guilt, stated that the 5th Amendment is intended to protectinnocent people.

Please do not use your respected position to advocate that readers so completely waive rights that took centuries of blood and treasure to aquire, the possible result of such waiving being potentially very dangerous to the citizen's finances and physical freedom, especially if he is indicted and convicted based wholly or inpart on comments he made. Except to mention it here, I won't address the possibility of a post-shooting civil lawsuit by the surviving criminal or his family.

Video: Don't Talk to Police by Prof. James Duane of Regent University Law School:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
 

Citizen

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

Johnny Law wrote:
SNIP Any time it is shootinginvestigation, any and allitems directly related to the incidentcan/will be taken as evidence. The firearm will be ballistically tested to confirm which gun shot who etc. To not do this would be neglect of duty on the Officer's part.


Cite, please. You, as much as anyone, know a citation is needed for that statement.

By the way, your own statement quoted here,contradicts the safety implied inyour earlier advocacy for the innocent to make statements. If the police are seizing "any and all items directly related to the incident...as evidence", it automatically implies they are looking for possible guilt. Do you really expect us to believe they will not also carefully note "any and all" statements and comments directly related to the incident "as evidence?"

"As evidence" that will be forwarded to the District or Commonwealth Attorney for evaluation about whether to seek an indictment. With the attendant risk of accidental misunderstanding or deliberate mis-assignment of meaning to thestatements, andthe risk of political or career-minded factors influencingthe DA.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Citizen wrote:
joeroket wrote:
0V3RC10CK3D wrote:
Why would they need to take your handgun for any sort of forensics or evidence if you admit, yea, I shot the guy, he broke into my house and assaulted me.

I don't see a need for them to take your gun and prove it was you when you clearly stated that you shot the guy.

Because if the prosecutor decides to file murder/manslaughter charges against you they want it as evidence. They have the authority to seize everything and anything that may be connected to a potential crime they are investigating.

Everything and anything connected to a potential crime they are investigating?

Cite, please.
OK I am not going to go dig through case law to get it but you know damned well they can. Let me rephrase my statement.

In the instance the OP has described they have the authority to seize any and all property that is directly related to the shooting. They may apply for a warrant that will increase their scope of search to include other items or areas that were not directly related during the initial investigation.

Is that better?

Without the citations, I am not going to say whether it is better.

It occurs to me that you need not confine your citations to court opinions or statutes.  Forum rule #7 lists "newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc." as acceptable sources.

It doesn't matter if you and I know whether you statement of law is accurate.  What matters is whether the new guys see a source they can use to sort it out for themselves.  By "sort it out" I mean evaluate the accuracy of the numerous statements that can show up on a thread.  Some totally wrong.  Some off here and there.  Some misleading because of the wording chosen by the poster.  

In your post I was mainly concerned with the comprehensive words I italicized. 

For example, what is the relationship, if any, between potential crime and probable cause?  What is the relationship, if any, between potential crime and reasonable articulable suspicion? (rhetorical questions)

A couple other examples; again, rhetorical questions.  Anything and everything.  Meaning if the police, while investigating a noise complaint, see some marijuana (contraband) burning on the kitchen table, they can warrantlessly seize the house, the pets, the TV?     

These things involve the 4th Amendment, reasonable searches and seizures, warrants, probable cause, and so forth.  We should be educating the new guys in these terms, so they can see what their rights are under the law (what's left of them, anyway). 

Plus, there is another great reason to educate the new guys in the actual law.  One of my favorite quotes.  Its from a speech by Edmund Burke to Parliament just before the American Revolution. 

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit...In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study...[T]his knowledge...is a formidable adversary to government.  This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.   (emphasis by Citizen)

I see what you are saying but you seem to be picking words individually out of my post and questioning, mind you rhetorically, their usage while not utilizing them in the manner that I did. I intentionally used the words "directly related to" on purpose.

In your example a TV is not "directly related to" the crime of possession of marijuana. It could however be directly related to the crime for which they responded to, a noise complaint, and gave them the exigency to enter the premises. So The TV actually would be lawful to seize/search depending on the severity of the noise ordinance.

Here is a cite from Hicks v. Arizona;

Relying upon a statement in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , that a warrantless search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation," the Court of Appeals held that the policeman's obtaining the serial numbers violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unrelated to the shooting, the exigent circumstance that justified the initial entry and search.
 

Citizen

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

joeroket wrote:
SNIP I see what you are saying but you seem to be picking words individually out of my post and questioning, mind you rhetorically, their usage while not utilizing them in the manner that I did. I intentionally used the words "directly related to" on purpose.

In your example a TV is not "directly related to" the crime of possession of marijuana...
I was still talking about your first quote. My examples were directed at the comprehensive words "anything", "everything", "potential crime."

Thank youfor the Hicks cite. I'll check it out.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

Another point to consider....

I think the greater part of using deadly force comes after the fact.

One can draw a parallel between the use of deadly force against another human with the experience of downing game - the REAL work is about to begin!
Don't assume that I'm equating the death of a human to that of an animal.

I'm saying that your life is about to ungergo some severe pressures and changes. You are going to be in a fight for YOUR life that will impact your relationships, your finances, your future, your happiness, your spiritual and emotional well being.

You may be alive, but you are going to have to prove your case in court and depending upon the circumstances and where you live, this will be a challenge. Win lose or draw, it will be very expensive and your life will never be the same. A jury may or may not be inclined to see things from your perspective.
Jeff Cooper described this as "surviving problem #2"; #1 being personal survival. Problem #2 isn't a factor otherwise.

In the heat of the moment, these things are not upper most in your mind; survival is paramount. The law provides for the use of deadly force in the preservation of life (yours or someone else's) but not for the protection of property.

This has been the case since the days of Blackstone's Commentaries On the Common Law of England, but I wouldn't want to risk that in Britain today.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Excellent discussion here!

I have one premise question.

Who notified (called, flagged down) police in this situation? Does the 'victim' call? What do they say?

It seems that we have skipped over this very important point of primary contact.

But I would agree that at that point, call an attorney and say nothing.
 

Citizen

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

gogodawgs wrote:
Excellent discussion here!

I have one premise question.

Who notified (called, flagged down) police in this situation? Does the 'victim' call? What do they say?

It seems that we have skipped over this very important point of primary contact.

But I would agree that at that point, call an attorney and say nothing.

I don't recall seeing advice on what to say in your phone call to police. Just advice to request an ambulance and officers.

I can say the dispatcher is likely to try to control the conversation. Assume the dispatcher is going to ask you questions that may not be in your best interests to answer. Having been asked ridiculous questions by police dispatchers myself, I am expecting plenty of "attempted discussion" from them for almost any call, much less a self-defense shooting.

I am not a lawyer. I plan to offer the location, that somebody attacked me and that I need to make a complaint. That I used my gun. That anambulance is needed for him and officers are needed so I can make the complaint. That the scene is secure. "No offense, dispatcher. I know you are just doing your job, but I will discuss it with the officers when they arrive."
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
gogodawgs wrote:
Excellent discussion here!

I have one premise question.

Who notified (called, flagged down) police in this situation?  Does the 'victim' call? What do they say?

It seems that we have skipped over this very important point of primary contact.

But I would agree that at that point, call an attorney and say nothing.

I don't recall seeing advice on what to say in your phone call to police.  Just advice to request an ambulance and officers.

I can say the dispatcher is likely to try to control the conversation.  Assume the dispatcher is going to ask you questions that may not be in your best interests to answer.  Having been asked ridiculous questions by police dispatchers myself, I am expecting plenty of "attempted discussion" from them for almost any call, much less a self-defense shooting.

I am not a lawyer.  I plan to offer the location, that somebody attacked me and that I need to make a complaint.  That I used my gun.  That an ambulance is needed for him and officers are needed so I can make the complaint.  That the scene is secure.  "No offense, dispatcher.  I know you are just doing your job, but I will discuss it with the officers when they arrive." 

That is a very nice response Citizen.

/stores it in the back of noggin for later usage.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

I have been wondering, under what cercumstances and what degrees of threatened and fearing for your life are you allowed to shoot someone? If someone pulls a gun on you, can you shoot them or do you have to wait until they shoot at you first? If someone pulls a knife on you, can you shoot them or only pistol whip them? If someone comes at you with a baseball bat, do you have to wait for them to swing it at you, or do they actually have to hit you with it? If a very large unarmed muscle bound guy comes at you and threatens you, How much blood do you have to lose before shooting them actually becomes self defense? To bad there is no cut and dry, or at least big brothers video cameras "everywhere" to verify your actions, I guess you have to have your own personel film crew, because otherwise everything is word against word, and if he's dead, well...
 

Citizen

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

amzbrady wrote:
I have been wondering, under what cercumstances and what degrees of threatened and fearing for your life are you allowed to shoot someone? If someone pulls a gun on you, can you shoot them or do you have to wait until they shoot at you first? If someone pulls a knife on you, can you shoot them or only pistol whip them? If someone comes at you with a baseball bat, do you have to wait for them to swing it at you, or do they actually have to hit you with it? If a very large unarmed muscle bound guy comes at you and threatens you, How much blood do you have to lose before shooting them actually becomes self defense? To bad there is no cut and dry, or at least big brothers video cameras "everywhere" to verify your actions, I guess you have to have your own personel film crew, because otherwise everything is word against word, and if he's dead, well...

Lots of threads on that. Lots of discussion.

Also, plenty of decent advice on the internet.

Searchfor these three key words in a row "ability,opportunity, and jeopardy" also substitute "intent" for"jeopardy".

This is something you really, really, really, really, really want to know about. Get it wrong and you could do ten years for manslaughter.
 

donsk

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
21
Location
, ,
imported post

In regards to seizure outside of the scope (taking all your guns etc) - they can't do it...

Chimmel VS California
Police may search without a warrant only the immediate area around the suspect from which he could obtain a weapon or destroy evidence. But a person's entire dwelling cannot be searched merely because he is arrested there.
Maybe this is a reach, but to the person who said taking all your guns (in this case the person being arrested owned the house, but in the case of a BG being stopped, someone is being arrested in the house, just not the HO (Hopefully!) – this seems like this would limit the search - This court case also would pertain to the police rights to search for evidence – if the police felt evidence could be destroyed/hidden etc they could search/seize that evidence – (this would allow them to seize the firearm if it was used in relation to a criminal action) but not allow them to search your entire house for *other* weapons (maybe under office safety they could, but they cannot seize those as evidence). If LEO’s want to search other rooms/areas of your house then if you do not have to consent from what I read in this court case.

Citizen wrote:
donsk16 wrote:
SNIP (I still don't get some of the "what ifs" of a situation - but I will have to look around some more this weekend to try to figure out when LEOs can and can't take my gun after a SD situations (such as, discharged and hit BG, discharged and missed BG, no discharge and held criminal at bay, no discharge and BG escapes...etc.)
Part of what is making it tricky to figure out is that the warrantless gun seizure might be authorized by different court opinions.

For example, shooting atsomeone might be prohibited under a law against discharging a firearm.And, at the same timebe prohibited by a law against assault. OK,the cop knowsby your statement thatyou fired the gun.

Holding someone at bay (I take you to mean"held at gunpoint for the police") might come under the headingof false imprisonment or kidnapping or something. OK, the cop shows up and sees you pointing a gun at someone. He doesn't know which of you is the criminal, but he knows for sure oneof you is the criminal.

Undercertain circumstances copscan temporarily seize guns for theirown safety and the safety of others. This would include thesafety of the guy you are pointing your gun at to holdhim forpolice. I am thinking that to the policeofficer he comes under the heading of "safety of others" until the cop sortsout whois the criminaland who is the victim. Remember, the cop doesn't know who the criminal is, but he knows for sure that at leastone of the people present is a criminal. See Terry vs Ohio,linked above for some of the circumstances that allow LEOs to seize firearms without a warrant.
I see that when they come, they can take the gun for officer safety (Terry and common sense show that) - but office safety would only limit them to when they are physically there, correct? Officer safety under Terry wouldn't allow permanent seizure however.

Then it again comes down to the LEO coming to the scene, you are right in that they could think of something such as false imprisonment or kidnapping occurred - its too bad that it works that way though...it seems so tilted away from the typical innocent until proven guilty theme into more whatever the particular LEO thinks when he gets to the scene.

Citizen wrote:
donsk16 wrote:
SNIP In reference to your statement number 2: When the LEO's interview you that night/day- simply saying "Tonight I was the the victim of a crime, and what I can tell you is they broke and entered and attempted to harm my family and I am pretty shook up from the whole experience, so I would like to go through the details with you at a future time when my mind is in a better state" be best? You are giving them a brief statement and you are cooperating, but doesn't say too much?
Whew! You ask meaty questions. I'm wearing out my keyboard. :) But, they are good questions!

You are now asking for legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

There is a fair amount of advice on this point available on the web. For myself, I plan to follow the advice of a fella with lots of courtroom experience and years as a cop--Massad Ayoob. He has a column in a couple gun magazines.

He suggests a simple declaration along the lines of:

"Officer, that man there (pointing) attacked me with that knife there (pointing) putting me in fear of my life. I shot him in self-defense. I will gladly sign a complaint. We all know this is a very serious situation. I will make a complete statement within 48 hours after having talked to my attorneys."

He also recommends pointing out evidence to the police so it doesn't get missed. My examples:

"See his footprints, where he came at me from those bushes right there."

"See my brass in a nice pattern here beside where I was standing."

"His accomplice ran back through those bushes. There may be blood on them."

"My defensive shooting happened right here; but I saw him run that way, and saw him ditch something, his knife maybe, in that storm drain over there."

Then shut the heck up. Politely. But shut up.

I do like this, and I know not to take anything on this forum as legal advice - so don't worry on that!

Way better than what I came up with, you cooperate, make sure the LEO's know what happened, but don't get into saying things in the heat of the moment that could be taken the wrong way.



After reading through everyones info and doing a bit more research on my own - I def will hand my gun over if it is discharged and do so willingly. However, if it wasn't' discharged, I will hand it over for office safety, and if they want to take it as evidence, I will at least try to convince the LEO that it wasn't part of the crime, and is outside the scope of evidence, and that he is leaving me unarmed after a violent crime occurred and I feel like he is putting my in an unsafe situation (In my house, with no SD (yes I will have a shotgun, hunting rifle etc...but that's not the point!) weapon, and an broken open window/door. If he still persists, I will stop my protest at that point, as I will have said what I can.
 
Top