What does, "secured" mean, in the concealed-weapon statute?

[t33j]

If it's not prying ...How did they find it?

$20 says he let them search the car.

 

[user]

If it's not prying ...How did they find it?

They stopped him for an improper lane change. Pulled him and his wife out of the truck. Put her on the curb and him behind the truck, and between the back of the truck and the cruiser. They asked him why he was nervous and he said it was because he had a gun in the car. Cop one was in the cruiser filling out the traffic ticket, when cop two slammed his hand on the hood of the cruiser and yelled, "Gun!". Cop two grabbed the client and pulled his hands back and handcuffed him, then threw him in the back of the cruiser. No request to search, no consent to search, cop two simply went ahead and did it. That's how he found the gun.

I was prepared to move to exclude the evidence on the ground that it was the product of an illegal search. Once they had the lad out of reach of the gun, and had only arrested him for an illegal lane change, they lacked probable cause to search and had no "officer safety" requirement.

The lad wanted to be a cop. I think he's changed his mind.

 

[virginiatuck]

What does, "compartment" mean, in the concealed-weapon statute?

"...such handgun is secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle..."

So, hypothetically speaking, the handgun could lawfully be secured between the seats, inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle; no?

Anyway, even if the statute said "locked," I'd just think that it meant "locked" as in "locked and loaded." :lol:

 

[TFred]

$20 says he let them search the car.

... No request to search, no consent to search, cop two simply went ahead and did it. That's how he found the gun.

Contribute to Skidmark's Legal Fund. ...Go to http://tinyurl.com/3zf4x6s



TFred

(Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are!!)

 

[Baked on Grease]

Contribute to Skidmark's Legal Fund. ...Go to http://tinyurl.com/3zf4x6s



TFred

(Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are!!)

Had to read that twice to figure out what you meant, telling the guy who bet $20 to give to Skid since he lost the bet.... well done.

 

[2a4all]

For example, if I remove my holstered HG from my belt and place it in the glove compartment as is, the entire package can still move around, and would not be "secured" because there is no restraining device attached to both the holster and the container which would restrict movement within the glove compartment, even though the gun cannot move within the holster.

It is indeed "secured" in that it cannot leave the compartment on its own. Read user's posted pdf, especially the example of the child seat. The child is indeed free to move within the confines of his seat in which he is secured, he is just not able to leave those confines unassisted. Secured need not mean "immobilized".

Umm, I did read User's pdf before I posted what you quoted. Sorry, zoom6zoom. The child seat analogy doesn't quite work here. The gun isn't quite capable of moving around nor escaping from the glove compartment by itself, but can certanly move as a result of vehicle motion.

 

[2a4all]

They stopped him for an improper lane change. Pulled him and his wife out of the truck. Put her on the curb and him behind the truck, and between the back of the truck and the cruiser. They asked him why he was nervous and he said it was because he had a gun in the car. Cop one was in the cruiser filling out the traffic ticket, when cop two slammed his hand on the hood of the cruiser and yelled, "Gun!". Cop two grabbed the client and pulled his hands back and handcuffed him, then threw him in the back of the cruiser. No request to search, no consent to search, cop two simply went ahead and did it. That's how he found the gun.

I was prepared to move to exclude the evidence on the ground that it was the product of an illegal search. Once they had the lad out of reach of the gun, and had only arrested him for an illegal lane change, they lacked probable cause to search and had no "officer safety" requirement.

The lad wanted to be a cop. I think he's changed his mind.

Wow! Talk about agressive police conduct! Your client should file a complaint.

 

[TFred]

Had to read that twice to figure out what you meant, telling the guy who bet $20 to give to Skid since he lost the bet.... well done.

Well, I wouldn't say "telling"... more like a very humorous suggestion... given in the same spirit that the wager was offered in the first place.

TFred

 

[user]

Wow! Talk about agressive police conduct! Your client should file a complaint.

His reasoning is much the same as most folks and the reason cops persist in this kind of behavior. A civil suit will take a year during which time he'll be under stress about it, it will cost him money, and there's no guarantee he'll ever see a nickle out of a judgment, even if he wins. By the way, judges exert a lot of control over cases by ruling on motions and discovery issues way before a jury ever hears a word of evidence; they filter what can go to the jury as evidence as well as what issues will be tried. Cases involving cops as defendants are generally lost because of the way judges apply "English" to the plaintiff's case. Then what you get may be something like this: "Mr. Hawes, your motion is very well researched, cogent, and well-written; your motion is denied. I have made my ruling, if your client does not feel that I am correct, he is free to note his appeal." (As near as I can remember, an actual quote from a now-retired judge in Fairfax Circuit Court.) Then you go through the trial and (predictably) lose at trial, and appeal from the judge's adverse ruling. That appeal is on a narrow issue of law, and the deck is very heavily stacked against reversal by the criteria used by the appellate court ("abuse of discretion", "clear error", or very rarely, "de novo").

The kid wants to finish college. The cops know perfectly well that being a plaintiff in a civil suit against cops is just another form of punishment. There's a special term for what they do: "Punishment by lawyer."

I noted yesterday that Eric Olsen is running for Commonwealth's Attorney in Stafford Co. using the phrase, "Keep Stafford Safe." I was thinking as I saw that sign, "safe from whom?"

 

[user]

Umm, I did read User's pdf before I posted what you quoted. Sorry, zoom6zoom. The child seat analogy doesn't quite work here. The gun isn't quite capable of moving around nor escaping from the glove compartment by itself, but can certanly move as a result of vehicle motion.

Considering this interesting application of pure reason to the issue, my comment is, "false". There's a bit of "what's really going on, here?" analysis required. People who want to use a firearm from within a car, say, during an inconvenient traffic stop in which the cop might discover the five or six 2.2 lb packages of cocaine in the back, generally have the gun concealed in a pocket in the door, between their legs, wedged between the seat and the console, or under the front seat. Or, nowadays, in the special holster you can get that attaches to the underside of the dashboard or the side of the seat. Or even in a shoulder holster. Unlawfully concealed weapons. The gun that's zipped up inside a bag made for the purpose, or in a closed box (including the glove box or center console) is not so easily accessible, nor so deceptively poised for attack. The distinction is between weapons intended for offensive, as opposed to defensive, use. So it's not a question of whether "secured" means "not free to flop about wildly" as opposed to "immobilized", but whether the gun is contained in such a way that it is not readily available to one who wants to use it offensively.

That's pretty good analysis, I think. I'll rewrite that in legalese and stick it in my memo for the next time I have to use it.

 

[TFred]

Considering this interesting application of pure reason to the issue, my comment is, "false". There's a bit of "what's really going on, here?" analysis required. People who want to use a firearm from within a car, say, during an inconvenient traffic stop in which the cop might discover the five or six 2.2 lb packages of cocaine in the back, generally have the gun concealed in a pocket in the door, between their legs, wedged between the seat and the console, or under the front seat. Or, nowadays, in the special holster you can get that attaches to the underside of the dashboard or the side of the seat. Or even in a shoulder holster. Unlawfully concealed weapons. The gun that's zipped up inside a bag made for the purpose, or in a closed box (including the glove box or center console) is not so easily accessible, nor so deceptively poised for attack. The distinction is between weapons intended for offensive, as opposed to defensive, use. So it's not a question of whether "secured" means "not free to flop about wildly" as opposed to "immobilized", but whether the gun is contained in such a way that it is not readily available to one who wants to use it offensively.

That's pretty good analysis, I think. I'll rewrite that in legalese and stick it in my memo for the next time I have to use it.

Perhaps Google could make a translator?

TFred

 

[user]

Perhaps Google could make a translator?

TFred

Then what would I do? Actually, more work for me, probably, given the success of things like preprinted "legal forms" from Staples and people like "Legalzoom".

 

[Baked on Grease]

Then what would I do? Actually, more work for me, probably, given the success of things like preprinted "legal forms" from Staples and people like "Legalzoom".

Maybe you can work as a legalzoom consultant? And probably make.1/8 the amount of money too... >.<

 

[Repeater]

I was prepared to move to exclude the evidence on the ground that it was the product of an illegal search. Once they had the lad out of reach of the gun, and had only arrested him for an illegal lane change, they lacked probable cause to search and had no "officer safety" requirement.

It would seem Gant would help you in this case.

 

[2a4all]

Wow! Talk about agressive police conduct! Your client should file a complaint.

His reasoning is much the same as most folks and the reason cops persist in this kind of behavior. A civil suit will take a year during which time he'll be under stress about it, it will cost him money, and there's no guarantee he'll ever see a nickle out of a judgment, even if he wins. By the way, judges exert a lot of control over cases by ruling on motions and discovery issues way before a jury ever hears a word of evidence; they filter what can go to the jury as evidence as well as what issues will be tried. Cases involving cops as defendants are generally lost because of the way judges apply "English" to the plaintiff's case. Then what you get may be something like this: "Mr. Hawes, your motion is very well researched, cogent, and well-written; your motion is denied. I have made my ruling, if your client does not feel that I am correct, he is free to note his appeal." (As near as I can remember, an actual quote from a now-retired judge in Fairfax Circuit Court.) Then you go through the trial and (predictably) lose at trial, and appeal from the judge's adverse ruling. That appeal is on a narrow issue of law, and the deck is very heavily stacked against reversal by the criteria used by the appellate court ("abuse of discretion", "clear error", or very rarely, "de novo").

The kid wants to finish college. The cops know perfectly well that being a plaintiff in a civil suit against cops is just another form of punishment. There's a special term for what they do: "Punishment by lawyer."

I noted yesterday that Eric Olsen is running for Commonwealth's Attorney in Stafford Co. using the phrase, "Keep Stafford Safe." I was thinking as I saw that sign, "safe from whom?"

I was thinking more along the lines of an "excessive/unreasonable use of force" complaint to the police department, for inclusion in Cop#2's jacket. Did either of these two bozos have any prior complaints? Their actions do seem to be over the top for a traffic violation. Call it "LEO Career Mentoring by Citizen".

 

[2a4all]

Considering this interesting application of pure reason to the issue, my comment is, "false". There's a bit of "what's really going on, here?" analysis required. People who want to use a firearm from within a car, say, during an inconvenient traffic stop in which the cop might discover the five or six 2.2 lb packages of cocaine in the back, generally have the gun concealed in a pocket in the door, between their legs, wedged between the seat and the console, or under the front seat. Or, nowadays, in the special holster you can get that attaches to the underside of the dashboard or the side of the seat. Or even in a shoulder holster. Unlawfully concealed weapons. The gun that's zipped up inside a bag made for the purpose, or in a closed box (including the glove box or center console) is not so easily accessible, nor so deceptively poised for attack. The distinction is between weapons intended for offensive, as opposed to defensive, use. So it's not a question of whether "secured" means "not free to flop about wildly" as opposed to "immobilized", but whether the gun is contained in such a way that it is not readily available to one who wants to use it offensively.

That's pretty good analysis, I think. I'll rewrite that in legalese and stick it in my memo for the next time I have to use it.

Well, there you go. A matter of perspective. I don't carry for any of the nefarious reasons you've suggested, and I tend to see things more from a engineering/technical view than from that of a scumbag hoping to not get caught. Perhaps I need to get out more.

 

[3fgburner]

This is actually a friend of mine. Those cops basically put him through 7 months of hell. Frankly, I think that the next Prince William Supervisors' meeting should get a bunch of angry, open-carrying VCDL members lined up to speak about PWPD's jackbooted thuggery. But that's just me.

 

[user]

It would seem Gant would help you in this case.

True. The reference is to Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ 07542 (2009) (Slip opinion)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ARIZONA
v.
GANT

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

No. 07-542.

Argued: October 7, 2008
Decided: April 21, 2009

Respondent Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car before officers searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket. The Arizona trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and he was convicted of drug offenses. Reversing, the State Supreme Court distinguished New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 — which held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a contemporaneous incident of a recent occupant's lawful arrest — on the ground that it concerned the scope of a search incident to arrest but did not answer the question whether officers may conduct such a search once the scene has been secured. Because Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, requires that a search incident to arrest be justified by either the interest in officer safety or the interest in preserving evidence and the circumstances of Gant's arrest implicated neither of those interests, the State Supreme Court found the search unreasonable.

Held: Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

Since the time that Gant was issued, courts have been falling all over themselves to find reasons why it doesn't apply to the cases they're considering. See, for example, United States v. Page, 679 F. Supp. 2d 648 (E.D. Va. 2009). These decisions aren't inventing legal fictions, the analysis is pretty good. Gant doesn't narrow the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement as widely as most defendants would like. It clearly applied to this case, however, where the defendant had only been charged with a minor traffic offense, for which he was not subject to arrest. He was subjected to a full custodial arrest, and the search of his vehicle occurred when he was both secured by handcuffs (note the use of the term, "secured") AND nowhere near the car.

I agree that it would be appropriate to complain as an employment matter, and I'll advise the client to do so. However, the recent publication of Gant and the relative lack of training that officers get would operate to the cop's favor in a civil suit, in which the defendant cop would plead qualified sovereign immunity and probably get the case dismissed on that basis.

 

[TFred]

I agree that it would be appropriate to complain as an employment matter, and I'll advise the client to do so. However, the recent publication of Gant and the relative lack of training that officers get would operate to the cop's favor in a civil suit, in which the defendant cop would plead qualified sovereign immunity and probably get the case dismissed on that basis.

One of the unfortunate aspects of this analysis is that even though the police can easily punish a citizen "by lawyer", the state pays for the defense of the police officer, so no reverse "lesson in the law" would be learned when the tables are turned the other way.

TFred

 

[Repeater]

True. The reference is to Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ 07542 (2009) (Slip opinion)

Since the time that Gant was issued, courts have been falling all over themselves to find reasons why it doesn't apply to the cases they're considering. See, for example, United States v. Page, 679 F. Supp. 2d 648 (E.D. Va. 2009). These decisions aren't inventing legal fictions, the analysis is pretty good. Gant doesn't narrow the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement as widely as most defendants would like. It clearly applied to this case, however, where the defendant had only been charged with a minor traffic offense, for which he was not subject to arrest. He was subjected to a full custodial arrest, and the search of his vehicle occurred when he was both secured by handcuffs (note the use of the term, "secured") AND nowhere near the car.

I agree that it would be appropriate to complain as an employment matter, and I'll advise the client to do so. However, the recent publication of Gant and the relative lack of training that officers get would operate to the cop's favor in a civil suit, in which the defendant cop would plead qualified sovereign immunity and probably get the case dismissed on that basis.

As you know, under these circumstances, a person is supposed to be released on a Summons, not subjected to a full custodial arrest. Sidestepping Moore, you could try this for fun. Note the final paragraph.

For added adventure, you could try False Imprisonment. Even so, some LEOs never learn, or don't care; the same A-Hole sheriff was sued again, and lost again.