• 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

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.

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.

I side with the state. What think you?
 
calamity said:
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.

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.

I side with the state. What think you?
Click to expand...

This is a slam dunk. Exigent circumstances is a constitutional exception used to preserve evidence. Gun stays in
 
Trouble is the cops could tamper with the gun. I trust cops 99 precent of the time but there are a small number that will do anything to get a conviction.

They screwed up. Perps don't get a second chance. Why should they? They should be more competent.
 
calamity said:
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.

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.

I side with the state. What think you?
Click to expand...

The cops need a warrant that is based on probable cause in order to take that person's property. So they screwed up and hopefully the judge tosses the evidence out. The cops had no right to confiscate that property without a warrant.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
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.

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.

I side with the state. What think you?
Click to expand...

What prevented them from getting a warrant prior to tipping off the "person of interest"? The circumstances appear only have become exigent after they made it known to the "person of interest" that their gun could be critical evidence. With no further details about the case it is hard to accept why a warrant should become optional.
 
calamity said:
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.

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.

I side with the state. What think you?
Click to expand...

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.
 
calamity said:
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.

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.

I side with the state. What think you?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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...

It doesn't need to be in plain sight. Yo can kick down the door of suspect of you believe they are destroying evidence. Anytime you see what can be evidence you can secure it until the investigation is complete without a warrant
 
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...
Its black and white that they can take it. They can take ANYTHING they deem might be used as evidence later at trial
 
jamesrage said:
The cops need a warrant that is based on probable cause in order to take that person's property. So they screwed up and hopefully the judge tosses the evidence out. The cops had no right to confiscate that property without a warrant.
Click to expand...

No they don't. If they are investigating a axe murderer and you have a bloody axe sitting in front of you they don't need a warrant to secure that
 
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...

I think you got it right. And in answer to the "on what basis" question I'd think caliber would satisfy most judges.
 
vegas giants said:
It doesn't need to be in plain sight. Yo can kick down the door of suspect of you believe they are destroying evidence. Anytime you see what can be evidence you can secure it until the investigation is complete without a warrant
Click to expand...

In the case of a hot pursuit or a warrant for something like a drug bust yes. Just because they went to talk to him? No. Once he showed them the weapon and it turned out to be the same caliber as the murder weapon they probably have a plausible case.
 
vegas giants said:
It doesn't need to be in plain sight. Yo can kick down the door of suspect of you believe they are destroying evidence. Anytime you see what can be evidence you can secure it until the investigation is complete without a warrant
Click to expand...


You're not far wrong but it's not quite that cut and dried.
 
vegas giants said:
Its black and white that they can take it. They can take ANYTHING they deem might be used as evidence later at trial
Click to expand...

If the state they can prove they didn’t need a search warrant, then it’s black and white your way. If they can’t prove that? They can’t use that evidence.
 
vegas giants said:
No they don't. If they are investigating a axe murderer and you have a bloody axe sitting in front of you they don't need a warrant to secure that
Click to expand...

Except that was not the case, as stated in the OP, this guy was already a "person of interest" and they had reason to believe that he had a gun. The question remains - why, prior to him being asked for the gun, was it impossible to get a warrant? They could easily have cuffed him, gotten a warrant, and then taken the gun. You don't ask a guy that you believe to be extremely dangerous (exigent need to stop immediately?) to go fetch his gun, take just that gun and then just leave him to go about his (murderous?) business.
 
vegas giants said:
This is a slam dunk. Exigent circumstances is a constitutional exception used to preserve evidence. Gun stays in
Click to expand...

What? If it was so exigent then why not arrest the guy on the spot instead of just taking his gun?
 
MaggieD said:
If the state they can prove they didn’t need a search warrant, then it’s black and white your way. If they can’t prove that? They can’t use that evidence.
Click to expand...

They didn't do a search. He showed them the gun. He did not say look for it yourself. If cops see potential evidence in front of them they can secure it. They did not conduct a search
 
vegas giants said:
Its black and white that they can take it. They can take ANYTHING they deem might be used as evidence later at trial
Click to expand...

If it's black and white then they make an immediate arrest, secure the scene, get a warrant, and then make a search.
 
vegas giants said:
They didn't do a search. He showed them the gun. He did not say look for it yourself. If cops see potential evidence in front of them they can secure it. They did not conduct a search
Click to expand...

As I said, if they can prove they took it legally, it’s good. Sans that, it can’t be used, counselor.
 
MaggieD said:
As I said, if they can prove they took it legally, it’s good. Sans that, it can’t be used, counselor.
Click to expand...

Good thing they took it legally
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If it's black and white then they make an immediate arrest, secure the scene, get a warrant, and then make a search.
Click to expand...

Why get a search warrant if you are not searching?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why not make an arrest if the circumstances are said to have been so exigent?
Click to expand...

I don't have all the facts. Do ten people live at that address? What if they are all persons of interest? What are the other pieces of evidence?
 
vegas giants said:
No they don't.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. There must be a warrant based on probable cause describing the persons and or things to be seized.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[SUP][a][/SUP] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


The fourth amendment is not just about search but also the seizure of property.

If they are investigating a axe murderer and you have a bloody axe sitting in front of you they don't need a warrant to secure that
Click to expand...


Not the same thing.A handgun by itself is not suspicious,especially a handgun made by the millions. An ax by itself is not suspicious.An ax with fresh blood dripping from it is suspicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom