Real Estate agent lets ATF into house; agents see gun case, ammo; get warrant

TFred said:

SNIP Are you really going to stand by this? Really?

Click to expand...

Of course, he is. Its typical statist, NovaCop/LEO229 attitude.

Of course it was an unreasonable search. People who know and exercise their rights would never consent to a plain view search given the potential liabilities to even an innocent person.

Separately, 229 conveniently avoids the issue that, according to the article, the ATF already had information the defendant possessed firearms. Given the latitude the courts have granted police on indicia of reliability of informants, how pitifully insuffient would their tip have to be to fail at getting a warrant in the first place.

The government agents keep finding creative ways around the 4th Amendment, and the courts keep granting them.

I guess when I go to sell I will have to include a clause in my agreement with my realtor that she is expressly not authorized to show the property to law enforcement--sincere buyers or otherwise. Maybe that door mat sold on Amazon would help reinforce the idea: "Come Back With A Warrant."

Citizen said:

I guess when I go to sell I will have to include a clause in my agreement with my realtor that she is expressly not authorized to show the property to law enforcement--sincere buyers or otherwise. Maybe that door mat sold on Amazon would help reinforce the idea: "Come Back With A Warrant."

Click to expand...

I had to go look... funny!!

Come Back With A Warrant

TFred

Citizen said:

Of course, he is. Its typical statist, NovaCop/LEO229 attitude.

Of course it was an unreasonable search. People who know and exercise their rights would never consent to a plain view search given the potential liabilities to even an innocent person.

Separately, 229 conveniently avoids the issue that, according to the article, the ATF already had information the defendant possessed firearms. Given the latitude the courts have granted police on indicia of reliability of informants, how pitifully insuffient would their tip have to be to fail at getting a warrant in the first place.

The government agents keep finding creative ways around the 4th Amendment, and the courts keep granting them.

I guess when I go to sell I will have to include a clause in my agreement with my realtor that she is expressly not authorized to show the property to law enforcement--sincere buyers or otherwise. Maybe that door mat sold on Amazon would help reinforce the idea: "Come Back With A Warrant."

Click to expand...

I'm sorry I don't side with the criminal in the "tie goes to the runner" rule. The runner being the LEO. A door mat cannot be determined to be the owner of said property, nor enough to revoke consent and demand a search warrant. Hahaha for those who think it is... geez too much internet for you. A search warrant is easy to obtain fortunately. Glad to see the good guys using some creativity to get around search warrants in order to then obtain them. I am glad my tax paying money is going towards criminals going behind bars. Obviously this guy was being looked at closely for criminality. IF HE WASN'T BREAKING THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE, HE WOULD NOT BE ARRESTED. We aren't talking about the government arresting innocent people here.

Sorry that I don't believe in the "not all felons should be banned from carrying loaded guns around my children" rule. I guess if you want to hide your criminal enterprise, then don't let agent show to LEOs because you want to continue to break laws.

On a personal note, Citizen, I don't mind you calling me LEO 229, however, it looks poorly upon yourself since I am not LEO 229 and that is sometimes your only "come back". I would not deny such accusations if I was. Why would I? However, it has become somewhat annoying to be accused of being someone (and having their opinion) when I am not. It's like me accusing you of being SouthernBoy. So please, grow up, and stop the accusations. I believe you are smart enough to come up with better rebuttals to support your own opinion.

ok i got it!

i have figured this thing out!
the cops already knew this felon had guns in the house, cause of the informants inside information!
the cops snuck a peek into the house by trickery with the real estate agent.

if the cops thought the entry with the agent was legal, they would have secured the crime scene then!
but they knew it wouldnt be proper, and would risk poison fruit!

so now they go ask for a warrant using the information from the informant!

now they can execute the proper search and seizure of the guns in the felons house!

end the end the underhanded entry and look around are moot,

1245A Defender said:

i have figured this thing out!
the cops already knew this felon had guns in the house, cause of the informants inside information!
the cops snuck a peek into the house by trickery with the real estate agent.

if the cops thought the entry with the agent was legal, they would have secured the crime scene then!
but they knew it wouldnt be proper, and would risk poison fruit!

so now they go ask for a warrant using the information from the informant!

now they can execute the proper search and seizure of the guns in the felons house!

end the end the underhanded entry and look around are moot,

Click to expand...

I agree with you for the most part. However, we don't know what exactly was leaked to the cops and what they knew. The courts like confidential informants to be "reliable". However, there always has to be a "first" or "second" for those informants to build their reputation as being reliable.

In my opinion, they might've had barely enough for a search warrant, but realized they could "sneak in" legally to take a peak. So why not? They are building a case. That's how criminals are held accountable. What if these LEOs "snuck a peak" to find out if your new, expensive, stolen big screen tv was in a suspects house? Would you still be against that (for those of you against the entry)?

Good. God. A'mighty.

It's like HankT and Leo229 had a love child.

KBCraig said:

Good. God. A'mighty.

It's like HankT and Leo229 had a love child.

Click to expand...

Just shows the moderators will allow this personal attack.. but will lock up any forum that is pro-LEO.
I don't know HankT or Leo229. I enjoy SouthernBoy because he is silly.

KBCraig, I don't understand why you would take a thread in this direction??!?! You don't show any interest in the topic nor do you share any opinion on any substantial discussion. Do you think you are witty? Well if you are, please indulge us with something interesting.

NovaCop10 said:

I agree with you for the most part. However, we don't know what exactly was leaked to the cops and what they knew. The courts like confidential informants to be "reliable". However, there always has to be a "first" or "second" for those informants to build their reputation as being reliable.

In my opinion, they might've had barely enough for a search warrant, but realized they could "sneak in" legally to take a peak. So why not? They are building a case. That's how criminals are held accountable. What if these LEOs "snuck a peak" to find out if your new, expensive, stolen big screen tv was in a suspects house? Would you still be against that (for those of you against the entry)?

Click to expand...

OH come on REALY ??? either they had the goods or they didn't but to lie and cheat the system makes them as criminal as anyone!!!!!!!!!!

sence we are all tossing around "possibilitys" I say his soon to be Ex drops the hint to the LEO'S to get him locked up there by makeing it a no lose custody case????

Realy what is he charged with??? Just the Felon in possesion. so what were they investigating him for ??? THEY WEREN'T they got a TIP that he had firearms peorid full stop end of story.

If anyone has new details of the investigation I'm all ears but to me from what I hear my "possible" scenariro is just as applicplicable as any at this point.

Realy for anyone who thinks Felons should be deprived the RIGHT to self protection I ask WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO GOD INTENDED HIS RIGHT TO BE AFORDDED TO ???????????

NovaCop10 said:

Just shows the moderators will ... lock up any forum that is pro-LEO.

Click to expand...

What?

Armed said:

I agree with NoVaCop... The key phrase here is: CONVICTED FELON! I do NOT want convicted felons in possession of firearms. It would appear that the feds were watching this guy because he's a dirt-bag. They had an opportunity to legally access his house and in the process found an opportunity to take hm off the street for at least 5 years on the firearms charges.

We can debate whether or not convicted felons should be allowed to possess firearms, but in the meantime - I do not believe that the firearms was the reason the feds wanted to inspect the home. The firearms are tertiary to the primary case.

Click to expand...

The right to bear arms is unqualified; it does not contain any specific prohibitions. In the state of Alabama, a person convicted of a crime of violence(,habitual drunkard, or drug addict) may lawfully keep and bear a rifle, shotgun, or short barreled rifle -- but not a pistol.

Ergo, a person in the state of Alabama NOT:
May lawfully own keep and bear any firearm (except for a rifle or shotgun cane, which is a banned weapon that NO ONE may possess) EXCEPT a pistol.

Felons have rights as well; some of them have a greater need to defend themselves more than some of us do because of poor choices in life.

We have more than two million people in prison today. 15-20% of them will return to life and will live out productive lives contributing to society.* If not married already, many will marry and have children. Do we want to be the one to tell that man, that woman, they do not have the right to protect their family but that we do have that right? Why is it that we insist that their family has less right to be protected than ours? Who are we to say that they no longer have a God-given right to self-defense? Have we put ourselves above God?

The Constitution does not limit the right to owning and bearing a firearm only to those who have never committed a crime. The Founding Fathers were felons in the eyes of the British Empire when they rebelled against the Crown. If they could have been caught, and some were, they were imprisoned (some executed) for treason. Yet, these same "felons" kept their firearms and used them against the Crown and secured the liberties that our country has enjoyed until recent history.

The only people that I would keep firearms away from would be those who have committed heinous crimes such as murder, rape, and kidnapping. They should never be freed. In fact, they should not be alive. These three crimes were the three given in the Bible for capital punishment. We should still be doing that today. If we would do that, we would not need to worry about giving violent felons firearms. This discussion would be unnecessary.

Does not every law-abiding citizen have a right to protect himself/herself just as much as we do? As long as these former "felons"** are free to move about society and engage life in a lawful manner, then I say they have as much right to protect themselves and their families as I do.

We must remain consistent in our principles. One day we too will be felons, that is unless we willfully surrender our firearms to a tyrannical government. That day is coming.

*The others who are released will be returning to prison.
** That excludes murderers, rapist, and kidnappers

KBCraig said:

Good. God. A'mighty.

It's like HankT and Leo229 had a love child.

Click to expand...

I've got Oops on ignore so I don't see his posts....but if Hank and 229 had a love child, he'd have to be an ^$$hole baby....so it could be.

NovaCop10 said:

Just shows the moderators will allow this personal attack..

Click to expand...

Personal? Against whom? No names of current forum members were mentioned. No one was quoted.

NovaCop10 said:

Just shows the moderators will allow this personal attack.. but will lock up any forum that is pro-LEO.
I don't know HankT or Leo229. I enjoy SouthernBoy because he is silly.

KBCraig, I don't understand why you would take a thread in this direction??!?! You don't show any interest in the topic nor do you share any opinion on any substantial discussion. Do you think you are witty? Well if you are, please indulge us with something interesting.

Click to expand...

If you think it is a personal attack, report it. Had the statement been made against me, I would have reported it and moved on. The post to which you replied is more likely to draw an ignore from me than what you posted.

What you posted was rational and makes sense. Likely, from whatever source, the police had some reason to believe that laws were being broken. The suspect made his home available to any and all through the real estate agent and the police used that open door to take a look and possibly turn their suspicions into probable cause.

Upon obtaining the PC, they got a warrant, seized evidence of the crime. Were I to be on the jury, the State would have to convince me that the felon had possession, constructive or otherwise, to convict. The other residents of the house did not lose their RKBA when he committed his felony. That being said, on the surface, those weapons sure seem to be his.

This sounds to me like probable lawbreaking, good police work, and probable stupidity on the part of the lawbreaker.

eye95 said:

If you think it is a personal attack, report it. Had the statement been made against me, I would have reported it and moved on. The post to which you replied is more likely to draw an ignore from me than what you posted.

What you posted was rational and makes sense. Likely, from whatever source, the police had some reason to believe that laws were being broken. The suspect made his home available to any and all through the real estate agent and the police used that open door to take a look and possibly turn their suspicions into probable cause.

Upon obtaining the PC, they got a warrant, seized evidence of the crime. Were I to be on the jury, the State would have to convince me that the felon had possession, constructive or otherwise, to convict. The other residents of the house did not lose their RKBA when he committed his felony. That being said, on the surface, those weapons sure seem to be his.

This sounds to me like probable lawbreaking, good police work, and probable stupidity on the part of the lawbreaker.

Click to expand...

I guess we have to agree to disagree I have yet to see any evidence that this is anything other than a revenge thing? What are the chances that the "tipster" is someone who is not close to the suspect? the question is How close? and why did that person seamingly suddenly decide to turn on the suspect? as I stated eirlier most probably it is an estranged Ex who is looking for revenge or leverage in a custody case.

Now I would like to extend to you all the scary part.

YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A FELON TO BE COUGHT UP IN THIS KIND OF MESS AND BE TURNED INTO ONE !!!!!

Think about it Please for all of your sakes just stop and THINK ! ! ! ! ! !

And nothing against our LEO members but you all know what I am saying is the absolute truth. I'm not saying all LEO are willing to ruin someones ability to defend themselves, but we all know there are those out there that would just out of sheer spite. This is not bashing ANY LEO this is honest facts.I think I actualy dispise the tipster in these type cases as much as the less than honerable LEO that would allow it.

IF you are a LEO and you would not allow it THANK YOU ! ! ! ! I mean that from the bottom of my very heart.

Nothing to agree or disagree about. What the LEO did was absolutely lawful. If we expect them to not bother us when we act lawfully, we should extend the same courtesy to them. If you think that what the officer did should be unlawful, try to get the law changed.

I get that you don't like it. Me? I won't lose any sleep over someone getting caught breaking the law.

NovaCop10 said:

I think we can all agree that the defendant in this case was guilty of a felony (on face value). Why should we argue that he is entitled to impunity and should be let off?

Click to expand...

Nova is correct.

John Brian Redmond (the appellant) was a fool for having his collection on display. The blame is entirely his, no one else.

The subject of ex-felons and gun rights is important, but that requires having the law changed, not ignored.

Felonies

Repeater said:

John Brian Redmond (the appellant) was a fool for having his collection on display. The blame is entirely his, no one else.

The subject of ex-felons and gun rights is important, but that requires having the law changed, not ignored.

Click to expand...

Repeater is correct on all counts.

Remember, guys, the Legislature makes new felonies every year.

Grow some grass for your own use? Depending on circumstances, you're a felon.

Share your prescription medication with a friend? You can be a felon.

Send an email/text-message to your girl/boyfriend -- even if you're a teenager -- about what you're looking forward to next weekend, or how good last weekend was? You're not only a felon, you're a SEX OFFENDER and required to register for the rest of your life.

Have sex with someone -- even your spouse -- in an unapproved manner? If he/she gets mad at you and reports it, then you're a felon, and a sex offender.

Once you're convicted of a felony, even if it's a Class 5 or 6 felony which can be punished with less than a year in the local jail, then YOU ARE A FELON.

That means NO voting, NO firearm of any sort under any circumstances, and NO employment in scores of occupations. "NO" as in NEVER FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. Unless, of course, you manage to get the Guv to either pardon you, or to "restore your civil rights". That last is a process that takes years, and thousands of dollars, BTW.

All of this can be yours, for lots of really stupid things, and without ever harming another person.

If the officer thought he had a reason for a search, he should have convinced a magistrate that a warrant was justified. He conducted a search, without a warrant. (period) We need to hold our officials to a higher standard, not a lower one. What I am allowed to do as an individual has no bearing on what LE should be allowed to do.

The officer should have obtained a warrant, and then searched and arrested. Had he stumbled upon the information while house shopping, things might be different, but he went for a purpose which would have otherwise been illegal.

The shrinking of our rights is entirely a function of making the majority dislike/hate the minority, and then allowing laws to infringe on the minority. Felons are a minority, are hated or feared by most, and politicians pick the easy fruit, so we allow open discrimination against felons.

nova said:

I'm against violent convicted felons who can't be trusted with guns being in public at all. Keep them in jail. They do their time. They're released as free and full citizens then or not at all.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.