Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Man Accused Of Bringing Guns Inside Hospital, concealed, not licensed. Poison fruit?

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Man Accused Of Bringing Guns Inside Hospital, concealed, not licensed. Poison fruit?

    http://www.wisn.com/news/30376162/detail.html
    Quote Originally Posted by WISN
    WAUWATOSA, Wis. -- A man will face charges after being accused of bringing two concealed weapons inside Froedtert Hospital.

    The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department released a statement that said hospital staff found two handguns inside the man's computer bag while he was visiting his wife at the hospital on Thursday.

    According to investigators, the man does not have a concealed carry permit and the hospital has posted signs banning weapons.
    Hospital staff acting as government agents (think Obamascare) is an easy argument.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Lacking any indication of why they looked inside his computer bag it is difficult to determine if there is any poisoned fruit or not. My money, however, says "No" because the hospital was not acting as agent for the state at the time.

    If anything it sounds like the guy was asked to leave and refused, which resulted in the Sheriff being called.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    I too am curious as to why or how they looked in his computer bag. Unless it was open and seen with out intrusion it could be considered an illegal search.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Lacking any indication of why they looked inside his computer bag it is difficult to determine if there is any poisoned fruit or not. My money, however, says "No" because the hospital was not acting as agent for the state at the time.

    If anything it sounds like the guy was asked to leave and refused, which resulted in the Sheriff being called.

    stay safe.
    In Wisconsin, If the building is legally posted against weapons or concealed weapons, at the entrances, and you are carying a concealed weapon, you are breaking the law as soon as you walk in. You are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification.

    It will be interesting to hear what led them to think he was carrying concealed, and then whether they had probable cause to search his computer bag. If he did not have a valid Concealed Carry License or permit, that would be violation of another statute, as well.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  5. #5
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    In Wisconsin, If the building is legally posted against weapons or concealed weapons, at the entrances, and you are carying a concealed weapon, you are breaking the law as soon as you walk in. You are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification.

    It will be interesting to hear what led them to think he was carrying concealed, and then whether they had probable cause to search his computer bag. If he did not have a valid Concealed Carry License or permit, that would be violation of another statute, as well.
    Act 35 makes no such statement that "you are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification." It is not unreasonable to assume that if you enter a building or business that has posted and you are "noticed" that you would simply be asked to leave. I have walked into a business and been halfway through with my business before I even wonder if they had posted. Luckily I looked on my way out and there was no sign. If you are asked to leave and refuse you are then guilty of trespassing and subject to any subsequent forfeiture.

    The question of how the discovery was made still needs to be answered. Hospital personnel do not have the authority to perform any type of search, so unless the discovery was accidental or voluntary it may be nullified in court if found to be an illegal search.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Act 35 makes no such statement that "you are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification." It is not unreasonable to assume that if you enter a building or business that has posted and you are "noticed" that you would simply be asked to leave. I have walked into a business and been halfway through with my business before I even wonder if they had posted. Luckily I looked on my way out and there was no sign. If you are asked to leave and refuse you are then guilty of trespassing and subject to any subsequent forfeiture.

    The question of how the discovery was made still needs to be answered. Hospital personnel do not have the authority to perform any type of search, so unless the discovery was accidental or voluntary it may be nullified in court if found to be an illegal search.
    Your use of the word assume gives a clue to the reasoning behind your opinion.

    Let's review what the official statutes of the State of Wisconsin have in them:

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...utes/943/II/13

    943.13(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
    ...
    943.13(1m)(c)
    ...
    943.13(1m)(c)2. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in any part of a nonresidential building, grounds of a nonresidential building, or land that the actor does not own or occupy after the owner of the building, grounds, or land, if that part of the building, grounds, or land has not been leased to another person, or the occupant of that part of the building, grounds, or land has notified the actor not to enter or remain in that part of the building, grounds, or land while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental unit, to a privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college, or to the grounds of or land owned or occupied by a university or college, or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of a building, grounds, or land used as a parking facility.
    ...
    943.13(2)
    ...
    943.13(2)(bm)
    943.13(2)(bm)1. In this paragraph, "sign" means a sign that states a restriction imposed under subd. 2. that is at least 5 inches by 7 inches.
    943.13(2)(bm)2.
    ...
    943.13(2)(bm)2.am. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., 4., and 5., an owner or occupant of a part of a nonresidential building, the state or a local governmental unit, or a university or a college has notified an individual not to enter or remain in a part of the building while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm if the owner, occupant, state, local governmental unit, university, or college has posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign.
    Subsection (1m), paragraph (c), subdivision 2. describes the forfeiture offense, referred to in this thread. This thread is dealing with a nonresidential building.

    Subsection (2), paragraph (bm), subdivision 1. describes the sign needed to legally post the area referred to in this thread.

    Subsection (2), paragraph (bm), sudivision 2. part am. describes how a sign alone, is considered notification for the area referred to in this thead. Additional notification of the individual is not required by this statute. You have violated statute 943.13(1m)(c)2.

    While you may be simply asked to leave, after entering a building that is properly posted, that is just a grace that is extended by the building management or by law enforcement. It is like getting a warning ticket after being clocked doing 75 mph in a 65 mph zone. You broke the law, they are just declining to cite. They could legally press charges, without any further notification or discussion.

    I think it is a bad idea to depend on the kindness of strangers. Better to just follow the law as written.

    11Act35, is a very complicated set of changes, additions, deletions to many Wisconsin statutes. To understand what the complete law in force is, take a direct look at the statutes.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    ....

    It will be interesting to hear what led them to think he was carrying concealed, and then whether they had probable cause to search his computer bag. If he did not have a valid Concealed Carry License or permit, that would be violation of another statute, as well.

    1) Unless the hospital was acting as an agent for the state they have no right to search anything. They may ask permission to view the contents of any containers, and may even decline to admit you if you refuse their request. But they have no right to search.

    2) And if they were acting as an agent for the state they would be requireds to indicate they they were doing so at the time they initiated the search.

    3) Once the cops became involved in investigating the allegation that he carried into a prohibited area they can develop the fact that he also had no CCL and thus committed another crime. He may not be able to dodge that charge.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    Your use of the word assume gives a clue to the reasoning behind your opinion.

    Let's review what the official statutes of the State of Wisconsin have in them:

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...utes/943/II/13



    Subsection (1m), paragraph (c), subdivision 2. describes the forfeiture offense, referred to in this thread. This thread is dealing with a nonresidential building.

    Subsection (2), paragraph (bm), subdivision 1. describes the sign needed to legally post the area referred to in this thread.

    Subsection (2), paragraph (bm), sudivision 2. part am. describes how a sign alone, is considered notification for the area referred to in this thead. Additional notification of the individual is not required by this statute. You have violated statute 943.13(1m)(c)2.

    While you may be simply asked to leave, after entering a building that is properly posted, that is just a grace that is extended by the building management or by law enforcement. It is like getting a warning ticket after being clocked doing 75 mph in a 65 mph zone. You broke the law, they are just declining to cite. They could legally press charges, without any further notification or discussion.

    I think it is a bad idea to depend on the kindness of strangers. Better to just follow the law as written.

    11Act35, is a very complicated set of changes, additions, deletions to many Wisconsin statutes. To understand what the complete law in force is, take a direct look at the statutes.
    Your point is taken, and while a business may not be required to ask you to leave I "assume" that business greed will in many cases provide that courtesy. I would imagine that its similar to walking into a restaurant without shoes. I would not maliciously enter a business but may unintentionally. However Act 35 really doesnt say your boned.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  9. #9
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    1) 2) And if they were acting as an agent for the state they would be requireds to indicate they they were doing so at the time they initiated the search.
    I don't think they can just say "I am acting as an agent of the state", even a private security officer does not have the legal authority to initiate a search. They can ask but you can decline. I remember reading some years ago where a security officer had been sued because he searched some lady's purse because he thought she shoplifted something.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Question How Can This Be Considered "Concealed" When It Is Being Transported??

    I don't understand how this can be considered concealed since 167.31 has been changed for handguns. The handguns do not have to be unloaded nor do they have to be in a case made specifically for handguns. I carry several handguns in a "Range bag" when I go to the range.

    Once again how can we transport a handgun (or any firearm) legally if by simply putting it in a container it is now a "concealed weapon"??

    167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and
    bows. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

    (b) “Encased” means enclosed in a case that is completely
    zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part
    of the firearm exposed.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  11. #11
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    I don't understand how this can be considered concealed since 167.31 has been changed for handguns. The handguns do not have to be unloaded nor do they have to be in a case made specifically for handguns. I carry several handguns in a "Range bag" when I go to the range. Once again how can we transport a handgun (or any firearm) legally if by simply putting it in a container it is now a "concealed weapon"?? 167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section:

    (b) “Encased” means enclosed in a case that is completely
    zipped, snapped, buckled, tied or otherwise fastened with no part
    of the firearm exposed.
    The elements of the crime of concealment ss941.23 still stand, requiring a test case that WCI and KS have so kindly provided - provided they pursue it to appeals court. That means that KS must be found guilty and with error grounds for appeal.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 02-05-2012 at 10:52 AM.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Question Ah..But There Is A BIG Difference In The Two "Cases"...

    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    The elements of the crime of concealment ss941.23 still stand, requiring a test case that WCI and KS have so kindly provided - provided they pursue it to appeals court. That means that KS must be found guilty and with error grounds for appeal.
    In K.S.'s case the handgun was in a holster in a vehicle. In the hospital case the handguns were being transported. There is a big difference. I have stated this many times: "How can we legally transport our firearms if we violate 941.23 every time?"

    This is from...LINK: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/public.../im2011_10.pdf


    “Carry” Versus “Possession”
    The majority of the provisions of the bill relate to restrictions on a person’s ability to “carry” a firearm. The bill defines “carrying” a firearm to mean to “go armed with” a firearm. The phrase “go armed with,” as it would relate to a firearm, has been defined by the Wisconsin courts to mean that the firearm was on the individual’s person or was within the individual’s reach and the individual was aware of the presence of the firearm. However, Wisconsin courts generally do not treat having an unloaded and encased firearm within one’s reach as “going armed with” the firearm.

    The last sentence is what is most important. And yes...I KNOW this is a MEMO and not law but it is out there for the general public's knowledge.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  13. #13
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    There is only one case, that I know, that bears on ss941.23. What is the other, please, or the ss167.31 test case?

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    The Two "Cases" I Was Referring To....

    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    There is only one case, that I know, that bears on ss941.23. What is the other, please, or the ss167.31 test case?
    Was K.S.'s "Case" and this guy who had his handguns in his computer "Case". It was a pun...

    The only legal case I know of is this: For instance, in State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65 (Ct. App. 1994), the Court of Appeals recognized that the placement, possession, or transportation of unloaded and encased firearms in vehicles as permitted by § 167.31 (2) (b), Stats., does not constitute going armed with a concealed weapon.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  15. #15
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark
    Once the cops became involved in investigating the allegation that he carried into a prohibited area they can develop the fact that he also had no CCL and thus committed another crime. He may not be able to dodge that charge.
    I disagree.
    If the search was illegal (he did not consent, they had no RAS he was committing a crime) then the results of that search, & any charges that might come from that, are immaterial.

    They cannot be brought/used/continued/pressed/whatever.
    That's exactly what happened in the Brookfield case.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    In K.S.'s case the handgun was in a holster in a vehicle. In the hospital case the handguns were being transported. There is a big difference. I have stated this many times: "How can we legally transport our firearms if we violate 941.23 every time?"

    This is from...LINK: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/public.../im2011_10.pdf


    “Carry” Versus “Possession”
    The majority of the provisions of the bill relate to restrictions on a person’s ability to “carry” a firearm. The bill defines “carrying” a firearm to mean to “go armed with” a firearm. The phrase “go armed with,” as it would relate to a firearm, has been defined by the Wisconsin courts to mean that the firearm was on the individual’s person or was within the individual’s reach and the individual was aware of the presence of the firearm. However, Wisconsin courts generally do not treat having an unloaded and encased firearm within one’s reach as “going armed with” the firearm.

    The last sentence is what is most important. And yes...I KNOW this is a MEMO and not law but it is out there for the general public's knowledge.
    First, take a look here at a definition which is used by the SS941.23 "Carrying concealed weapon" statute.

    939.22(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
    I don't know if the hospital visitor had handguns which were loaded or not, but as far as SS941.23, it doesn't make any difference, they are still considered a "Dangerous weapon".

    Here is the link to the "Carrrying concealed weapon" statute
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/941/III/23

    For the purposes of understanding what the law is, and how it applies, anything other than the statutes and case law can be very misleading. Sometimes the statutes are contradictory.

    The Legislative Council memo which you cite, has this at the top of page 3:

    * Permits placing, possessing, or transporting a loaded and unencased handgun in a vehicle.
    This is what MKEgal is in trouble over and facing a 941.23 charge.

    Do not put much trust in a MEMO

    ----------------------------

    This situation does not involve the firearms transportation statute.

    The SS167.31 "Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows"
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/167/31

    Is not pertinent to this situation (in a hospital), it applies to transporation in motorboats, vehicles, airplanes, and weapon usage near roadways and power transmission facilities.

    ----------------------------

    My GUESS, is that the hospital visitor either:

    1) Mentioned that there were handguns in the computer case.
    .. or
    2) Opened the computer case, the handguns were then visible to someone else, and that knowledge was communicated to hospital staff.
    Last edited by E6chevron; 02-05-2012 at 01:48 PM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    First, take a look here at a definition which is used by the SS941.23 "Carrying concealed weapon" statute.



    I don't know if the hospital visitor had handguns which were loaded or not, but as far as SS941.23, it doesn't make any difference, they are still considered a "Dangerous weapon".

    Here is the link to the "Carrrying concealed weapon" statute
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/941/III/23

    For the purposes of understanding what the law is, and how it applies, anything other than the statutes and case law can be very misleading. Sometimes the statutes are contradictory.

    The Legislative Council memo which you cite, has this at the top of page 3:



    This is what MKEgal is in trouble over and facing a 941.23 charge.

    Do not put much trust in a MEMO

    ----------------------------

    This situation does not involve the firearms transportation statute.

    The SS167.31 "Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows"
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/167/31

    Is not pertinent to this situation (in a hospital), it applies to transporation in motorboats, vehicles, airplanes, and weapon usage near roadways and power transmission facilities.

    ----------------------------

    My GUESS, is that the hospital visitor either:

    1) Mentioned that there were handguns in the computer case.
    .. or
    2) Opened the computer case, the handguns were then visible to someone else, and that knowledge was communicated to hospital staff.
    Oh, I know what the laws are and that is my point. How can ANYONE transport a "dangerous weapon" legally IAW 941.23? It cannot be done (without a Wisconsin CWL for four specific "items") even though ACT 35 states it CAN be done without a CWL for handguns (IE...Krysta's case). As I have stated before if the police wanted to they could put an officer at every sporting goods store and arrest everyone with a "dangerous weapon" as they enter or leave the store. Since 167.31 is only for transport in "vehicles" then technically we can never carry our firearms to and from our vehicles legally. You gotta love the wonderful laws of Wisconsin!
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  18. #18
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post

    In Wisconsin, If the building is legally posted against weapons or concealed weapons, at the entrances, and you are carying a concealed weapon, you are breaking the law as soon as you walk in. You are not entitled to a verbal warning or additional notification.
    That's pretty much how it is in Mississippi, too.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  19. #19
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Hummm,,,..

    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    That's pretty much how it is in Mississippi, too.
    thats interesting about mississipi,,,
    even though it is off topic, I wonder if in mississippi, concealled means concealled?
    Would an improperly posted sign still carry the weight of law, in mississippi?
    its important to note that in wiconsin, a business that is not completely and
    properly posted, pretty much doesnt count!
    of course that hasnt been fully fleshed out in the courts quite yet, but
    they will eventually either have to shlt or get off the pot!

    Do you OC,,,, in Mississippi?
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  20. #20
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Do you OC,,,, in Mississippi?
    No, but I do legally conceal carry.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  21. #21
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    I was under the impression that evidence of a crime (in this case a gun in the hospital assuming it IS a crime and signs were posted, etc) is found by a civilian NOT affiliated with or working for a police officer (meaning not a LEO or informant) was fair game as the police did not have a hand in "searching" for it.

    In fact, except for wiretap laws I am pretty sure any searches, illegal or not, conducted by civilians can't be thrown out...


    ETA:

    Yup... Illegal searches (not wiretaps) by civilians are admissible.

    United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 113 [“[The Fourth Amendment] is wholly
    inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not
    acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental
    official.”];

    Emslie v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 210, 222 [“[A] motion to suppress evidence
    [obtained illegally by a private citizen] cannot be made on the ground that its acquisition
    constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under Penal Code section 1538.5.”].

    People v. Otto (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1088 [suppression is required under federal law when the
    evidence was obtained by means of a civilian’s illegal wiretap].


    Perhaps this has been changed since but I have not found any cases saying so.
    Last edited by Stanley; 02-06-2012 at 04:43 PM. Reason: Changes. Found citations.

  22. #22
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    My argument is, for the interference of the government in healthcare, the employees are de facto government agents.

  23. #23
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    My argument is, for the interference of the government in healthcare, the employees are de facto government agents.
    That I will ask for some cite or proof of. I also don't believe that ALL government agents are able to act as law enforcement agents, IE able to initiate a search/seizure.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  24. #24
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    I was under the impression that evidence of a crime (in this case a gun in the hospital assuming it IS a crime and signs were posted, etc) is found by a civilian NOT affiliated with or working for a police officer (meaning not a LEO or informant) was fair game as the police did not have a hand in "searching" for it.

    In fact, except for wiretap laws I am pretty sure any searches, illegal or not, conducted by civilians can't be thrown out...


    ETA:

    Yup... Illegal searches (not wiretaps) by civilians are admissible.

    United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 113 [“[The Fourth Amendment] is wholly
    inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not
    acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental
    official.”];

    Emslie v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 210, 222 [“[A] motion to suppress evidence
    [obtained illegally by a private citizen] cannot be made on the ground that its acquisition
    constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under Penal Code section 1538.5.”].

    People v. Otto (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1088 [suppression is required under federal law when the
    evidence was obtained by means of a civilian’s illegal wiretap].


    Perhaps this has been changed since but I have not found any cases saying so.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    "lawul purpose defense" under Hamdan is presumably still viable after passage of concealed carrylicensing scheme.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •