• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Confiscation

vegas giants said:
For a person of interest?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Cops went by the house to ask the guy some questions. Like a dummy, he answered them and then showed them the gun. Duh. What the hell should the cops do after that? Leave without the evidence?
 
=calamity;1067685782]Interesting development here in a local murder trial/hearing. Turns out that the cops confiscated a gun suspected to be the murder weapon without permission or a warrant. However, they did seek a warrant before testing the gun. A judge has heard the argument, and he now must decide if the evidence was legally obtained.
Click to expand...
Not being nit picky Calamity,but how much time has gone by since the murder and confiscation of said 9mm?
Details: Cops have a person of interest in mind while investigating a murder. They find out he owns a 9mm hand gun. A 9mm handgun was used in the murder. So, they go to his house and ask to see said gun. Person of interest shows it to them. Cops say, "Yep, this is it." And, then they take the gun. Suspect complains says he does not consent to confiscation. Cops claim exigent circumstance: probable cause the gun was used in a crime and it is likely thee suspect will destroy the evidence or, worse, use to it commit more crimes, while the state waits for a judge to issue a warrant.
Click to expand...
Any idea yet why he is a person of interest? Or what turned the cops in his direction? How do they know it was a handgun?
I side with the state. What think you?
Click to expand...
I think the state screwed the pooch. Having a firearm isn't a crime unless you happen to be a prohibited person aka violent criminal record not this 'no fly list' crap or was depressed years ago or any number of other things they like to do. Point being if he showed them his 9mm when asked about it...How could cops just say "Yep, this is it." Hmm
1:He had no idea.
2:He did know and changed any ballistic fingerprints.Microstamp(if applicable)extractor marks, chamber markings. All easy peezy.

Calamity keep us posted.
 
MaggieD said:
It’s black and white. The state must prove they took it with his permission. If the can’t? I say it’s inadmissible. They could have stood right there and gotten a warrant. Or arrested him on suspicion ofnthey were so sure and obtained a warrant. Or maybe even gotten a warrant right at the scene.
Click to expand...
Very good point. Why didn't they arrest him if they were so sure of the firearm?
 
calamity said:
Here's a good article on this case. I love how the author doesn't hold back, surprising considering how liberal this town is. I guess Diane really liked the two victims, like the rest of us.

Alleged killers? rights were violated, attorneys state ? The Yellow Springs News
Click to expand...

Good old home to Antioch. I had a far left (he was really good btw) law professor who was from LA, and went to Antioch rather than Stanford. we'd drive through that town in the 90s and it look like Haight-Asbury in the 60s
 
TurtleDude said:
Good old home to Antioch. I had a far left (he was really good btw) law professor who was from LA, and went to Antioch rather than Stanford. we'd drive through that town in the 90s and it look like Haight-Asbury in the 60s
Click to expand...

We don't have many murders around here. And, these two victims were well liked, especially the male. He was born in town. Everyone knew him.
 
Goshin said:
Tough call, but if I remember my cop training correctly, I think they'll come out ok on this.

He could have refused to show it and they'd have had to get a warrant. Since he showed it, it is now "evidence in plain sight", and subject to seizure to prevent destruction of evidence, even without a warrant.

The only caveat I see off hand is if they're questioned on "on what basis did you assume this weapon was the murder weapon?" That might get a little sticky, but if they don't blow it they'll probably be ok.

I think so anyway... been a long time since the academy.
Click to expand...

Showing it is one thing. Which he gave permission by showing. Giving it up? New deal.

Seems like the fact they got a warrant before testing and not before confiscating might figure in.
 
jimbo said:
Showing it is one thing. Which he gave permission by showing. Giving it up? New deal.

Seems like the fact they got a warrant before testing and not before confiscating might figure in.
Click to expand...


Hard to say. That's why we have lawyers and judges and stuff. :)
 
jimbo said:
Showing it is one thing. Which he gave permission by showing. Giving it up? New deal.

Seems like the fact they got a warrant before testing and not before confiscating might figure in.
Click to expand...

No warrant needed to confiscate potential evidence. However, you do need a warrant to do anything with it.
https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDF...0012-30050 Search and Seizure Field Guide.pdf

Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless search is valid when there is PC for a
search and either the evidence is in imminent danger of destruction, the safety of
officers or the public is threatened, police are in hot pursuit, or the suspect is likely to
flee before a warrant can be issued. This exception is valid as long as the
emergency/exigency continues. Any evidence found in plain view may be seized.
Officers must be able to show that a search under this exception was conducted in a
reasonable manner and that obtaining a warrant would have either been impractical, or
not possible under the circumstances.

...Be careful, exigency can dissipate (i.e., once the defendant is arrested), thus requiring a
warrant, or another exception, to continue a search.
Click to expand...
 
jimbo said:
What makes you think they took it legally? That seems to be the question.
Click to expand...

It is my belief it would be completely legal though I will admit anything can happen in court
 
vegas giants said:
It is my belief it would be completely legal though I will admit anything can happen in court
Click to expand...

It hinges on the cops' testimony. If they articulate exigent circumstance without hedging or flubbing their reasoning for confiscating the weapon, it should hold up. However, if they hee and haw about it, the case could turn in a hurry.

Question I have is: what part of the gun evidence gets tossed if he wins the motion? Surely, the prosecutor will be able to say the police saw the gun when he voluntarily showed it to them. They will, however, be denied the chance to argue that ballistics matched the bullets at the crime scene. Tricky stuff, but I suspect a good prosecutor can still win this case, even without the ballistics evidence. It'll just be less of a slam dunk case.
 
It's not gun related, but the motion filed by the accomplice is rather interesting. He was brought in for questioning, spouted out a bunch of self-serving statements, and now argues he was not read his rights. Curious to see how that plays.

Cops argue he was not a suspect, but rather was a potential witness. He was not under arrest and was free to leave. Therefore, Miranda did not apply. Also, from what I know about law, self serving statements are often admissible, regardless of Miranda.It's like the "excited utterance" exception.
 
calamity said:
It hinges on the cops' testimony. If they articulate exigent circumstance without hedging or flubbing their reasoning for confiscating the weapon, it should hold up. However, if they hee and haw about it, the case could turn in a hurry.

Question I have is: what part of the gun evidence gets tossed if he wins the motion? Surely, the prosecutor will be able to say the police saw the gun when he voluntarily showed it to them. They will, however, be denied the chance to argue that ballistics matched the bullets at the crime scene. Tricky stuff, but I suspect a good prosecutor can still win this case, even without the ballistics evidence. It'll just be less of a slam dunk case.
Click to expand...

Why would they deny ballistics? If it comes back positive they have the gun that killed the victim in this guys hands
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom