Illegal removal?

[steve817]

Please let us know how this plays out.

[Photoman]

This all seems a bit weird and kind of illegal...what do you guys think about all this? Any advice?

You need to call a good lawyer immediately.

[srothstein]

Let me pipe up with the one thing everyone has missed so far. If you think HPD officers did something wrong, you will probably get the best response by contacting the HPD Internal Affairs department. They may call it something like Office of Professional Standards or Professional Responsibility or something else like that, but the cops will still call it IA.

The Sheriff and DPS may take the report but would normally just turn it over to HPD anyway since they are the department with primary jurisdiction. Also, when it involves a complaint about the actions of officers, the departments will generally all the other agency's IA and let them investigate it themselves. This is considered professional courtesy amongst the agencies.

And the IA officers will investigate. They have very little use for cops who steal. IA can be fair in some cases, biased in favor of the cops in some cases, and biased against the cops in some cases. I have never seen a case of IA trying to cover up theft by cops (brutality and rudeness are another matter). If there is a report and it doesn't mention the guns, the officers might be allowed to amend it and then will face suspension, if they can justify why they did what they did. But the guns had better have been placed in the property room for them to have any hope. I think IA would agree with me that if the guns were placed in the property room, then the cops were not stealing them, though they may not have done things correctly. But if the guns were not placed in the property room, I see theft charges in someone's future. There can be no excuse for not placing the guns in the property room.

And at the same time, the IA guys will be able to tell you what you have to do to get the guns back. They can explain HPD's procedures if the guns are in the property room. And they can tell you what you will go through if the guns are not there.

So, I recommend HPD IA over the other alternatives. And I hope things work out easily for you on this.

[The Mad Moderate]

I hope it works out for you.

[gigag04]

They took them for safe keeping, and it was not any type of forfeiture - it falls under the community policing function of law enforcement and it is legal. The call most likely came out as an overdose, and as such, there is a possibility that the subject is suicidal. If the guns aren't taken for safekeeping, then the dept can get sued for gross negligence. It is a double edged sword. As much as we might think it silly, it is justifiable in the courts, and it is ultimately for safety - and a little bit of a CYA for the local depts from sue happy families of successful suicides. It will be a pain, and it was unlucky, but just go get a medical (physical and mental) clearance, and go pick them up.

[E.Marquez]

They took them for safe keeping, and it was not any type of forfeiture - it falls under the community policing function of law enforcement and it is legal. The call most likely came out as an overdose, and as such, there is a possibility that the subject is suicidal. If the guns aren't taken for safekeeping, then the dept can get sued for gross negligence. It is a double edged sword. As much as we might think it silly, it is justifiable in the courts, and it is ultimately for safety - and a little bit of a CYA for the local depts from sue happy families of successful suicides. It will be a pain, and it was unlucky, but just go get a medical (physical and mental) clearance, and go pick them up.

So assuming for a sec, it was not a suicide attempt but the officers properly took the weapons as a departmental CYA deal, just because of the way the call came out (overdose).

The victim here, did not ask to be saved from them self's, did not need to be safeguard from there legally owned weapons, and the weapons were taken without permission from that victims home.. And the Official response is,, The victim now has to go though the embarrassing and financial hassle, assuming the burden of proving they are sane and physical cleared (what ever that means,, since when is there a law requiring a physical health minimum to own or posses a weapon?)


Again assuming the officers took the weapons with best (if not misguided) intentions, why should the financial , emotional and physical burden fall on the victim in this case?

This concerns me, almost as much as the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" unless of course your a LEO, DA or Judge.

[Kythas]

They took them for safe keeping, and it was not any type of forfeiture - it falls under the community policing function of law enforcement and it is legal. The call most likely came out as an overdose, and as such, there is a possibility that the subject is suicidal. If the guns aren't taken for safekeeping, then the dept can get sued for gross negligence. It is a double edged sword. As much as we might think it silly, it is justifiable in the courts, and it is ultimately for safety - and a little bit of a CYA for the local depts from sue happy families of successful suicides. It will be a pain, and it was unlucky, but just go get a medical (physical and mental) clearance, and go pick them up.

So assuming for a sec, it was not a suicide attempt but the officers properly took the weapons as a departmental CYA deal, just because of the way the call came out (overdose).

The victim here, did not ask to be saved from them self's, did not need to be safeguard from there legally owned weapons, and the weapons were taken without permission from that victims home.. And the Official response is,, The victim now has to go though the embarrassing and financial hassle, assuming the burden of proving they are sane and physical cleared (what ever that means,, since when is there a law requiring a physical health minimum to own or posses a weapon?)


Again assuming the officers took the weapons with best (if not misguided) intentions, why should the financial , emotional and physical burden fall on the victim in this case?

This concerns me, almost as much as the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" unless of course your a LEO, DA or Judge.

Giga is right and it's not the fault of the department or the officers. You can blame this one on lawyers.

Imagine for a minute this was a legitimate overdose. In this case it wasn't, but the cops didn't know that, though they've seen dozens of calls similar to this one that were. The subject of the OD is taken to the hospital and survives, gets released from the hospital, and goes home where he has his guns. He then decides to properly complete the suicide attempt using his firearm that the cops didn't remove from the house in the initial call.

The distraught family is contacted by an attorney with the ethics of John Edwards (that's how he made his millions, after all) and convinces them that their child's suicide is the fault of the police department who didn't properly protect and safeguard their loved one by removing the firearms during the initial overdose call. The family then sues the police department and city for negligence in the death of their loved one. They likely wouldn't win in court, but the city will typically settle to avoid cost of litigation - a settlement is cheaper than fighting and winning in court.

If you think this hasn't happened, think again. Scenarios like this play out all the time so most departments will have a policy of searching for and removing firearms from homes where the call is a possible suicide attempt. The medical clearance comes, again, from the department protecting itself against a lawsuit - after all, turning firearms over to a person who is still suicidal would put the department in the same position as not removing the guns in the first place. A doctor's release simply removes liability from the department when they release the guns back to the person.

It's a pain, I know, but it's standard procedure in our litigious society for people and entities to legally cover themselves against liability.

[AEA]

All that understood.......but I don't like it.......

The bigger question is why can't the lady get a straight answer (and receipt for the guns) from the Department that seized them?

[paulhailes]

I think Giga's answer is a reasonable one and makes since, it sucks in this case but they did not know the OP and did not know if it was an intentional overdose or not. What bothers me is from what I understand there is not record of the guns being taken, I hope it is just a clerical error and somebody is just not looking in the right spot. Best wishes in your recovery of your firearms.

P.S. Giga did you ever get that PM I sent you a couple of weeks ago?

[esxmarkc]

Am I sincerely the only one here reading the part where a CHL holder ends up in the ER after being found unconscious from alcohol and prescription meds and just facepalming.

Hopefully you weren't carrying anywhere is such condition and I sincerely hope this was some sort of accident. If not, you have other serious issues to contend with. The guns can simply be replaced.

As for getting them returned if you continue to run into dead ends then I think a quick consult with a good lawyer will get a proper letter drafted and sent to the correct desk.

[suthdj]

Correct me if I am wrong but does PD policy have an rule as law? If not then what they did for what ever reason is theft. Didn't the SCOTUS rule the police are not responsible for our safety?

[G.A. Heath]

I am curious as to what legal authority was used to seize the firearms if Giga's belief is correct. I want to believe Giga which is why I still stand by my original advice of contacting the department, get a receipt and police report and go from there. We small town folks don't have departments that can afford Internal Affairs divisions so I never thought of that angle but I would recommend going that route if you can not get the documentation needed to verify the guns were taken properly.

Not all medications have alcohol warnings, and CHLs can consume (especially on their own property), so I would think that in this case the OP made an honest mistake that almost got them killed. But contact the department and get the documentation, and based on your results there decide what to do. BTW, please keep us informed as to what happens.

[Salty1]

First of all I think that the OP needs to start reading the labels on prescription bottles and the information that is provided with every prescription. They will clearly state about alcohol use while taking the medications.... Strike 1 against the OP for this situation even happening, look in the mirror for the first person to blame for the current situation.

I suggest going to the HPD and getting a receipt for the items that were taken, make sure it includes the serial numbers and has the date the receipt was provided and the date the guns were taken. Have them put in writing their requirements to return your property, once you have this information either comply on your own or hire a lawyer to handle it for you. Either way the best tool for self defense and personal protection sits above your shoulders.............

[tacticool]

Hey guys,

I need some advice about how to deal with the Houston PD. Last week I was taken to the emergency room because of an interaction between alcohol and a prescription medication - my roommate called 911 after she couldn't wake me up. I stayed at the hospital overnight because of my physical condition but was never admitted to any sort of psychiatric facility. When the police came with EMS they removed two handguns and a shotgun from my apartment, which I'm guessing is standard procedure when responding to such calls. According to my roommate, each firearm was taken by a different cop. She showed a paramedic both my DL and CHL but no information was taken down until everyone else was gone. She didn't receive a report of any kind and I wasn't given a case number or other any paperwork.

I thought about it and I agree with Steve.

You should call 713-308-8900 first thing Monday morning and tell them some of your property was taken by some HPD officers and neither you nor your roommate received a receipt or any other paperwork. Be clear that you want your property returned ASAP. Let them tell you how to proceed. If they want you to come in person and make a written statement, do so and bring witnesses. This is for everyone's benefit.

[srothstein]

I am curious as to what legal authority was used to seize the firearms if Giga's belief is correct. I want to believe Giga which is why I still stand by my original advice of contacting the department, get a receipt and police report and go from there. We small town folks don't have departments that can afford Internal Affairs divisions so I never thought of that angle but I would recommend going that route if you can not get the documentation needed to verify the guns were taken properly.

There is a court recognized authority for police to act to to promote the welfare of individuals or community, based on common-law. It is what allows police to take many actions, such as helping lost motorists, that are not criminal investigations. It is actually generally recognized as a responsibility of the police, which is why so many of us (me included) get upset when they see an officer cruise by someone who is broken down on the side of the highway. We expect our police to be helpful. The court ruling in Warren was not to remove or reduce this common-law function. It did not say the police have no duty to protect the community, but that they had no duty to protect any specific individual without some special relationship to that individual. So, the police could take the weapons to prevent the suicide, or they could leave them and not be sued (successfully, the suit could still be filed and cost money to defend against).


On the second side, even small towns will have someone assigned to the IA functions though it may not be a full division like a major agency would have. In Luling, it was the Deputy Chief's job. And that department only had 15 officers. In smaller departments, it does fall on the Chief and may not be as non-political as I had mentioned (after all, he hired them and works with them). But short of absolute corruption in the agency (and it has happened unfortunately), no cop likes a thief in uniform.