Not a Good LEO Encounter

[smokindragon]

Fight for those weapons return...

[Tireshred]

This sounds like a bogus arrest and the offer to drop the charges tends to prove it. I think his lawyer was doing nothing more than giving him the facts. If dropping the charge was contingent on giving up the guns, then his lawyer was correct in advising him that his legal fees for defending the criminal charge and for recovering his property would far exceed the value of the guns. Even if the charges were ultimately dropped without giving up the guns, the legal fees would still exceed the value of the guns. Any honest attorney would advise his client of the costs of litigation and let him/her decide if they want to pursue the matter.

Chas.

Thanks for the advice, I just talked with him and showed him this thread, that's what he's doing, although he'll never get back the day he lost in an 8x11 with 10 other guys.

[ClarkLZeuss]

The LEO asked where he was going and when he said where, he was asked if he had any guns. He said yes, the LEO moved the bag and saw the gun and arrested him for unlawful possession of a firearm.

If it truly was the LEO that un-concealed the gun, then there was no crime committed by the citizen. It shouldn't matter if the method of concealment was a gym bag, shirt, console, safe, etc. Concealed means concealed. Since the officer had to ask if there were any guns and where the guns were means that they were already properly concealed. The citizen did not un-conceal the guns, therefore he did not commit the offense of "failure to conceal." And if his traffic violation was not a Misdemeanor B or A, then there is no connection between the offense and the possession of guns. Therefore, the UCW charge was completely unwarranted. Fight it!

But, IANAL, and so I'm only looking from the standpoint of theory, not practice.

[nitrogen]

Countersue for civil rights violations?

Otherwise the LEO's just stole his guns under color of law, and should be arrested for theft.

[Tireshred]

I have little doubt my friend was in the right, this is theft by law IMO, but he's not a rich man and having all charges dropped must look good, it would to me, considering the consequences. He was stopped for going 52 in a 45.

[Purplehood]

Take the Drivers Course and pickup your guns~!

[ClarkLZeuss]

He was stopped for going 52 in a 45.

That's not even close to an offense worse than a Misd. B or A. This whole thing stinks!

[ELB]

... He was pulled over for speeding in a podunk little town outside of San Antonio, I don't remeber which one...

Since I frequent the San Antonio area, I would be very curious to know which town this was, if you happen to remember next time you talk with your friend.

As the situation was stated, this does indeed sound corrupt. I hope your friend has the spirit and the means to not only fight the original charge, but legally thump the department and town that permits shenanigans like this.

Best wishes to your friend.

[Tireshred]

I'll ask him tomorrow, but I think he's a bit embarrassed about it all and just wants it to be in his past. I've tried to be supportive and not ask questions and just let him tell the story.

[dihappy]

This about sucks :(

Its too bad he didnt know his rights better and refused, or stated, that he did not give consent to search.

The cops must have given him the "you dont mind if i search do you?" line.

Its a shame that a crooked, or poorly educated cop, can just break the law in an instant, arrest you, but then it costs YOU thousands to either prove you werent guilty, or get your property returned.

[Liberty]

Why do police/sheriff departments put provisos like this on these deals? Why not simply return them? What do they have to gain?

[/quote]
Ahmm? isn't it obvious? They have the guns to gain.

[Liberty]

This about sucks :(

Its too bad he didnt know his rights better and refused, or stated, that he did not give consent to search.

The cops must have given him the "you dont mind if i search do you?" line.

Its a shame that a crooked, or poorly educated cop, can just break the law in an instant, arrest you, but then it costs YOU thousands to either prove you werent guilty, or get your property returned.

We have cops who apparently aren't shy about using blackmail to get a a couple of guns. Would such corrupt officers be above lying about the guns being unconcealed, if it meant covering their behinds.

[srothstein]

I think Charles gave the best answer about the lawyer's advice. The only additional possibility would be to pay the lawyer to file the federal civil rights suit as a negotiating point. This would probably get all charges dropped and the guns back, but it would cost the lawyer's time and the filing fees. That may or may not be worth the value of the guns.

As to why the cops do it, there are several possible answers. I doubt that the cops are corrupt in the conventional sense of the word (they are not looking to keep the guns for personal benefit). I would guess the first cop made an honest (stupid) mistake. The agency is probably trying to save face AND probably has an anti-gun feeling to begin with.

As a matter of principle, I think I would try to fight it. But, I cannot argue too much with a man who looks at the cash value of putting it behind him also. Guns can be replaced in most cases. The time spent fighting it and the possibility of what a jury would do cannot be replaced.

[Aggie_engr]

Okay, this is the third time to re-type my post, dang storm keeps cutting my computer off... So, my brother was involved in a similar situation not too long ago with arcola pd on hw6. After he pulled over and the officer asked for his license/registration as usual, my bro said he saw the officer look over at the gun magazines(books) sitting in his passenger seat and promptly asked if there were any guns in the vehicle, to which my bro replied yes-sir I have a handgun in the center console. At the time my bro was waiting on his chl to come in so he was carrying under the MPA. He said the the officer then got all weird and nervous(probably out of anger) and asked him to step out of his mustang while he searched the car, in the meanwhile ranting about how "you know you're not supposed to be doing that" (carrying in your car) and how it's against the law. My bro said he just played it cool and answered yes sir, no sir like pops instilled in us and after some more words from the officer he let him go with just a speeding ticket. I told my brother he probably didn't get an UCW because the officer KNEW the law but just wanted to blatantly disobey it and try and preach his personal beliefs on everyone.

Tireshread, I wouldn't roll over one second for this. To protect and serve am I correct? Then why do some go out of their way to not enforce the law, but what they think should be the law? If indeed your friend had his handgun concealed then I would sue the be-geezus out of them. At least to get his guns back and to pay for all legal fees involved in the altercation. I would be mad to no end if this happened to me, as I'm sure it would, wait excuse me, SHOULD make anyone fume! Makes me want to...

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

[Aggie_engr]

Why not negotiate for lawyer's fee and court fees in the lawsuit...?