Seizure for Safekeeping?

[Apd09]

Does anyone here agree that SOME people in our society should not be able to breath, let alone be trusted with guns? Seizing guns for safekeeping is a good idea for some folks. Maybe not for anyone here necessarily, but a lot of you here cry for mental health upgrades in our country. Those two sovereign freaks in Nevada recently should've had their guns removed, but since they showed no signs to the police that there was something clearly wrong, the police had no choice but to leave.

It's truly beyond me what some of you want us to do to combat mentally unstable people. The same people who use guns to kill others and make more band and laws that make our lives miserable. I'm not saying take guns from everyone who has an argument, but if there are legit concerns about a person then some kind of steps need to be taken. And not any one law or policy can fix every single situation.

Oh and yes we lie during investigations. People lie to us more, so if you don't like the one tool we are allowed to use to solve already difficult investigations, go kick rocks with flip flops. Or invent a magic crystal ball that solves crimes for us so we don't inadvertently violate someone's rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My father was a police officer for 30 years, I feel for you and completely agree.


Sent from a galaxy far, far, away....

 

[mike_in_md]

Just my opinion, but it should be pretty simple. If an officer believes that a person is a threat to themselves or others than that person should be taken to a qualified doctor for an evaluation. Only if that person is a threat to themselves or others should they not allowed to have access to guns. By the way, it should be even more simple. If they are a threat to themselves or others by a doctor, they should not be released until they are not a threat. The guns do not need to be removed and bail shouldn't be allowed until that time.

 

[Inigoes]

Oh and yes we lie during investigations. People lie to us more, so if you don't like the one tool we are allowed to use to solve already difficult investigations, go kick rocks with flip flops. Or invent a magic crystal ball that solves crimes for us so we don't inadvertently violate someone's rights.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a social aspect that generally presents mistrust.

If a question is ever asked of a LEO; is the response: an outright lie, do not know, or the truth?

 

[teratos]

That is a social aspect that generally presents mistrust.

It makes even otherwise law-abiding and generally pro-LEO citizens like me a little distrustful. Frankly, I'm disgusted to hear that LEO lie in investigations all the time.....but that is justified because citizens lie more. Uh, no. It's called integrity. Get some.

 

[Inigoes]

It makes even otherwise law-abiding and generally pro-LEO citizens like me a little distrustful. Frankly, I'm disgusted to hear that LEO lie in investigations all the time.....but that is justified because citizens lie more. Uh, no. It's called integrity. Get some.

Probably why the MSP will never get a straight answer, since they only answer to the governor.

Police answer to some executive in one form or another. Thankfully, Sheriff's have to answer to their constituents.

 

[Corporal Doug]

It makes even otherwise law-abiding and generally pro-LEO citizens like me a little distrustful. Frankly, I'm disgusted to hear that LEO lie in investigations all the time.....but that is justified because citizens lie more. Uh, no. It's called integrity. Get some.

There is a difference between a white lie when it matters, and outright lying to pin something on someone.

Example:

Investigating a simple CDS possession with two different people. You have then both separated and tell one suspect that his buddy gave him up and that the weed was his. (Even though his buddy never said a word). Now the suspect admits that it was his. Of course this is a simple example of the "lies we tell".

A completely unforgivable and bogus lie that is illegal would be:

"Sir I'm searching your car, I think you might have something illegal." Even though there are no grounds to search said vehicle.

My second example is the one that would erode public trust, not my first example which is an investigative tool used when most likely we already know the truth. Don't think for a second that we want to make a random law abiding citizen in trouble by lying to them. It doesn't work that way, and this isn't TV or the movies where the cops lie about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[good guy 176]

And what is the proper way to decline to answer? I would never lie to a LEO doing his job, but personally would prefer not to tell the truth.

It's called a white lie. The older I get the fewer anti laws I care to obey; kinda like choosing candy at the dime store; some things I like and some I don't.

I can stand on my head the rest of the way, if I have to.


Lew--Ranger63

 

[Inigoes]

There is a difference between a white lie when it matters, and outright lying to pin something on someone.

Example:

Investigating a simple CDS possession with two different people. You have then both separated and tell one suspect that his buddy gave him up and that the weed was his. (Even though his buddy never said a word). Now the suspect admits that it was his. Of course this is a simple example of the "lies we tell".

A completely unforgivable and bogus lie that is illegal would be:

"Sir I'm searching your car, I think you might have something illegal." Even though there are no grounds to search said vehicle.

My second example is the one that would erode public trust, not my first example which is an investigative tool used when most likely we already know the truth. Don't think for a second that we want to make a random law abiding citizen in trouble by lying to them. It doesn't work that way, and this isn't TV or the movies where the cops lie about everything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to mention demanding to see photo id for any non traffic offense...

 

[teratos]

There is a difference between a white lie when it matters, and outright lying to pin something on someone.

Example:

Investigating a simple CDS possession with two different people. You have then both separated and tell one suspect that his buddy gave him up and that the weed was his. (Even though his buddy never said a word). Now the suspect admits that it was his. Of course this is a simple example of the "lies we tell".

A completely unforgivable and bogus lie that is illegal would be:

"Sir I'm searching your car, I think you might have something illegal." Even though there are no grounds to search said vehicle.

My second example is the one that would erode public trust, not my first example which is an investigative tool used when most likely we already know the truth. Don't think for a second that we want to make a random law abiding citizen in trouble by lying to them. It doesn't work that way, and this isn't TV or the movies where the cops lie about everything.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Brooklyn]

It makes even otherwise law-abiding and generally pro-LEO citizens like me a little distrustful. Frankly, I'm disgusted to hear that LEO lie in investigations all the time.....but that is justified because citizens lie more. Uh, no. It's called integrity. Get some.

Its niot as bad as all that.. most of the time .. Once on a traffic stop I was asked where i was coming from I said x.. more questions .. then what were you doing at Y ? I was at X not Y.. You said Y before.. no I did not . etc. See liars tend to pick the story they think they will believe even if they have to change the story. .. Good reason to avoid a conversation..

 

[Brooklyn]

There is a difference between a white lie when it matters, and outright lying to pin something on someone.

Example:

Investigating a simple CDS possession with two different people. You have then both separated and tell one suspect that his buddy gave him up and that the weed was his. (Even though his buddy never said a word). Now the suspect admits that it was his. Of course this is a simple example of the "lies we tell".

A completely unforgivable and bogus lie that is illegal would be:

"Sir I'm searching your car, I think you might have something illegal." Even though there are no grounds to search said vehicle.

My second example is the one that would erode public trust, not my first example which is an investigative tool used when most likely we already know the truth. Don't think for a second that we want to make a random law abiding citizen in trouble by lying to them. It doesn't work that way, and this isn't TV or the movies where the cops lie about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah .. Prisoners Dilemma -- a classic -- but in fact both types of lies tend to erode public trust... this tactic only works because the perp trusts his buddy less than the cops.. I guess its harmless as long as it works -- but by the time it stops working the perps will think their fellow criminals are more trustworthy than the police-- thats quite a result ..


Not saying its evil or wrong-- just pointing out that it may explain why so many ny-ers are not to happy with NYPD-- and most of those persons fit a demographic profile .

It is having an effect on public trust .. just slowly

 

[rico903]

There is a difference between a white lie when it matters, and outright lying to pin something on someone.

Example:

Investigating a simple CDS possession with two different people. You have then both separated and tell one suspect that his buddy gave him up and that the weed was his. (Even though his buddy never said a word). Now the suspect admits that it was his. Of course this is a simple example of the "lies we tell".

A completely unforgivable and bogus lie that is illegal would be:

"Sir I'm searching your car, I think you might have something illegal." Even though there are no grounds to search said vehicle.

My second example is the one that would erode public trust, not my first example which is an investigative tool used when most likely we already know the truth. Don't think for a second that we want to make a random law abiding citizen in trouble by lying to them. It doesn't work that way, and this isn't TV or the movies where the cops lie about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do I think there are people that shouldn't own guns, yes, I know a few.
Your examples are somewhat valid in IMO. But what gives an LEO the right to ask if there are any guns in your car, out of the blue? If you say no and they search and find one then you are guilty of lying. How often are LEOs busted for lying? It's this crap that makes people distrustful. If someone come to my house and asks are there any guns in the house or where are your guns my reply will be the same place as your warrant-nonexistant. Should they get a warrant I'm guilty of lying to an improper question that they had no right to ask for w/o a warrant IMO. Playing known criminals off each other is one thing but lying to a so far innocent law abiding citizen is another. Just love it when they say if you come clean now it will be easier on you than if you lawyer up-what BS. Just makes their job easier. While I'm at it I'll ad that being able to record LEOs is is one of the greatest things to come down the pike. I can remember in my youth cops beating the crap out of someone for trivial shit and then doing the same to someone who stepped up and said enough is enough, just take them to jail. Southern district in Balt City was notorius for this abuse of power. Just think back to the 60s and 70s in the south for a reason to record nowadays. Some LEOs still have that mind set.

Please excuse the rant as I personally have never had a problem with a cop. Well just once but it didn't involve me, just as a witness, being intimidated. But I have to ask, anyone who reads a news paper or watches the news knows it's perfectly legal to record LEO activity. When will some of of these few knuckle heads learn it? Maybe a month off w/o pay will get it to sink in.
Now I can think of one really raw deal that happened to a city cop, Ofc Rivera or close. He got phucked over a video, probably edited, because Bealefeld wouldn't man up and do the right thing. Another political pawn in the top ranks ruined a guys life for BS.

 

[PO2012]

Circa 2005 this happened to me.
I had caught my (obviously ex) girlfriend cheating on me and said/yelled some less than kind things to her and went home. An hour later BPD showed up to "talk to me". They asked if they could take my firearms to their vehicle "for safekeeping" while they sorted things out- she obviously told them I had guns. When they left, my firearms left with them.
Once they take firearms in to safekeeping, it is VERY hard to get them back. It took me almost 2 years to get mine back and that was after psych evaluations, producing documentation to prove I owned them, etc. My doctor even wrote a letter that I was not under any psychiatric care or on any medications- she was careful in her wording to not to cross the "liability line".
The kicker is that I was never charged with anything, let alone convicted of anything.

After that incident, I vowed that on duty law enforcement will never enter my home again without a warrant.

Be advised that if your lover or spouse has established residency in your home your consent is meaningless. The policy in my agency is that if your lover or spouse "guides" us to the firearms we can seize them without the owner's permission. This is how the agency gets around applying for a search warrant. We don't search for anything, a resident with standing to be in the home "guides" us to the weapons and produces them for seizure.

As for not allowing entry into the home, a resident is allowed to force entry into his or her own home or to authorize the same. If you don't want us to come in but your lover or spouse resides in the home and wants us in we're coming in. We may enter by key or we may force the door using feet or tools. If it comes to the point where a ram, a halligan tool and a sledgehammer are employed the first thing to come through the door will be a bullet resistant shield.

For the record, I don't endorse or participate in the above listed practices. I'm simply letting you know what's become of policing in this state. If you're not willing to spend a great deal of time, effort and money working to reverse the damage that's been done to our system then the only way to avoid these situations is to live your life in such a way as to avoid drawing scrutiny to yourself. Behavior that would have once resulted in a disapproving look or a stern warning from a Police Officer now results in being arrested and having one's property seized. If you are drinking in public (whether you're still sober or have become intoxicated) and have a negative interaction with the Police you are likely in for a world of hurt. If you have an altercation (verbal or physical) with your lover or spouse and the Police are called you are likely in for a significant emotional and legal event.

I'm a Police Officer and have been for some time and I can tell you that I do my very best to avoid dealing with on duty Police Officers, Deputies and Troopers that I don't know while I'm off duty. The number of Robocop imitators, fake tough guys, wannabe Marines and inadequate or antisocial types has gone up dramatically since I came on. You have a lot of people coming into this profession with no meaningful life experience trying to live out a fantasy that's two parts "The Shield" and one part "Call of Duty". At one time these people were ostracized and made to tow the line by other Officers and where that failed by their Sergeant. Not anymore. Our profession is in decline. There are many reasons and I'm not going to go into detail here. It's just a shame. It really is.

 

[PO2012]

It makes even otherwise law-abiding and generally pro-LEO citizens like me a little distrustful. Frankly, I'm disgusted to hear that LEO lie in investigations all the time.....but that is justified because citizens lie more. Uh, no. It's called integrity. Get some.

While I agree with you in spirit, we have to lie to criminal suspects because getting a conviction these days without tricking or cajoling a suspect into confessing is very difficult. We have victims who are shot in front of fifty people in the middle of the street and when we show up everyone says they were in the bathroom, looking the other way etc. Very few people will tell us what happened and even fewer will testify. Without witnesses and without the public's assistance we only have two means left to secure a conviction: physical evidence and a confession.

The other reality is that lying to an innocent person who isn't mentally impaired simply doesn't work. If I tell you that you left your fingerprints in the victim's blood you're not going to confess if you know you were in bed with your wife at the time of the murder. Rather, you'll tell me that what I'm saying is impossible and you'll stick with it. Not necessarily so for the killer who knows he didn't wear gloves. Lying to folks in the street is a necessary tool that often goes a long way to securing justice and avoiding violence. When serving a warrant I'll often say I have "court papers" for a certain person or that "I need to talk with_______." Better I trick the person into making an appearance so they can be taken into custody peacefully than to announce my presence like a G-Man in an old black and white film and have a barricade situation or a shoot out result.

 

[Squaregrouper]

Be advised that if your lover or spouse has established residency in your home your consent is meaningless. The policy in my agency is that if your lover or spouse "guides" us to the firearms we can seize them without the owner's permission. This is how the agency gets around applying for a search warrant. We don't search for anything, a resident with standing to be in the home "guides" us to the weapons and produces them for seizure.

As for not allowing entry into the home, a resident is allowed to force entry into his or her own home or to authorize the same. If you don't want us to come in but your lover or spouse resides in the home and wants us in we're coming in. We may enter by key or we may force the door using feet or tools. If it comes to the point where a ram, a halligan tool and a sledgehammer are employed the first thing to come through the door will be a bullet resistant shield.

For the record, I don't endorse or participate in the above listed practices. I'm simply letting you know what's become of policing in this state. If you're not willing to spend a great deal of time, effort and money working to reverse the damage that's been done to our system then the only way to avoid these situations is to live your life in such a way as to avoid drawing scrutiny to yourself. Behavior that would have once resulted in a disapproving look or a stern warning from a Police Officer now results in being arrested and having one's property seized. If you are drinking in public (whether you're still sober or have become intoxicated) and have a negative interaction with the Police you are likely in for a world of hurt. If you have an altercation (verbal or physical) with your lover or spouse and the Police are called you are likely in for a significant emotional and legal event.

I'm a Police Officer and have been for some time and I can tell you that I do my very best to avoid dealing with on duty Police Officers, Deputies and Troopers that I don't know while I'm off duty. The number of Robocop imitators, fake tough guys, wannabe Marines and inadequate or antisocial types has gone up dramatically since I came on. You have a lot of people coming into this profession with no meaningful life experience trying to live out a fantasy that's two parts "The Shield" and one part "Call of Duty". At one time these people were ostracized and made to tow the line by other Officers and where that failed by their Sergeant. Not anymore. Our profession is in decline. There are many reasons and I'm not going to go into detail here. It's just a shame. It really is.

Good post.
FWIW- She lived ~10 miles away and didn't have any belongings (not even clothes or hygiene products) at my place.

 

[PO2012]

Good post.
FWIW- She lived ~10 miles away and didn't have any belongings (not even clothes or hygiene products) at my place.

If you hadn't answered the door but rather had sat quietly in your home they would have left and told her to seek an ex parte and/or a statement of charges from the Court Commissioner at 500 N. Calvert St or 1400 E. North Ave. In the meantime you would have had the opportunity to make arrangements for your firearms.

One piece of advice that I can't stress enough is to keep one's distance from mentally ill or vindictive people in one's personal relationships. If your lover or spouse is disturbed or likes to make your life miserable you have a choice to make. You can keep the relationship or you can keep your guns (not to mention, your freedom and your livelihood). You can't have both. Be polite, be considerate, be a gentleman but break contact as soon as possible and get out of Dodge. Just my .02 as someone who's had to serve plenty of B.S. protective orders and make a number of arrests based on warrants whose probable cause was questionable at best.

I should also add that if you are served with an ex parte or protective order you need to bring a competent private attorney to your hearing. Having a temporary or interim order become permanent can have life changing consequences.

 

[Oldcarjunkie]

“[For] someone that was medically evaluated, before I would even return it back to someone where we seized the weapon I will ask for a certificate from the registered owner to produce a doctor's certificate indicating that they are not a threat to themselves or the public," Det. Howard Jones said

What doc would sign off on this. I would imagine them signing would bring them in liability wise if something were to ever happen which would make any doc run for the hills and not sign.

Ding ding ding .. we have a winner..

 

[fabsroman]

While I agree with you in spirit, we have to lie to criminal suspects because getting a conviction these days without tricking or cajoling a suspect into confessing is very difficult. We have victims who are shot in front of fifty people in the middle of the street and when we show up everyone says they were in the bathroom, looking the other way etc. Very few people will tell us what happened and even fewer will testify. Without witnesses and without the public's assistance we only have two means left to secure a conviction: physical evidence and a confession.

The other reality is that lying to an innocent person who isn't mentally impaired simply doesn't work. If I tell you that you left your fingerprints in the victim's blood you're not going to confess if you know you were in bed with your wife at the time of the murder. Rather, you'll tell me that what I'm saying is impossible and you'll stick with it. Not necessarily so for the killer who knows he didn't wear gloves. Lying to folks in the street is a necessary tool that often goes a long way to securing justice and avoiding violence. When serving a warrant I'll often say I have "court papers" for a certain person or that "I need to talk with_______." Better I trick the person into making an appearance so they can be taken into custody peacefully than to announce my presence like a G-Man in an old black and white film and have a barricade situation or a shoot out result.

Yeah, all fine and good to a point. How about lying to the mother of two young men that they need to come down to the station to be booked and that they will be released on their own recognizance only to turn around and send them to Seven Lochs when they are unwilling to roll over on their friends that were involved in the crime. The investigating officer knew damn well that they were not going to roll over, and lied to their mother to get them down there. He scheduled the appointment late in the afternoon so that there would be hardly any time left at Seven Lochs before the two young men had to spend the night there. Little did the officer know that I was ahead of the game and had $20,000 in cash sitting in a brief case for bail just in case. Well, just in case happened and the commissioner pretty much crapped his pants when I opened the briefcase and gave him the $15,000 in bail that he had set.

Yep, it is a necessary tool that leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, and it isn't just used for murder and shootings, but for simple assault, DUI, speeding, etc. Had an officer lie to me that she paced me doing XX, when I knew for a fact that she didn't because she was on the other side of the road. She lied on the stand too. Had a DNR officer lie on the stand too. She threatened me with charging all 12 people hunting with shooting a mockingbird if I would not tell her who did it. Pretty sure I pissed her off when I told her that she could drag all of us into court but she still needed to prove who shot the mockingbird. She charged me with having a loaded shotgun in the car, which never happened. She couldn't even testify in Court as to what type of shotgun I was hunting with (e.g., o/u, semi-auto, pump).

Law enforcement wants the public's trust, and thinks that lying to the public is going to gain that trust.

As far as an innocent person not confessing to a crime because he knows you are lying, that is all fine and good and I agree with you on that one. However, YOU ARE LYING. I know convictions are way more important than the public's perception of law enforcement. Then, law enforcement wonders why the public see it as a "Them against us" instead of it being a community.

Integrity. If you have it, nothing else matters. If you don't have it, nothing else matters.

Somewhat of a shame that I have to tell my kids not to believe a single thing that a law enforcement officer ever tells them and not to trust them as far as you can throw them. Quite a shame indeed.

FYI - I hate the "lie to a criminal to catch a criminal" policy because it is a lot of "lie to innocents in the hope of catching a criminal".

WE KNOW YOU ARE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rant over.

PS - Kudos to you for what you have posted in this thread. However, what am I supposed to think when you write something to the effect of "I have had to serve warrants to arrest people where probably cause was questionable at best." Imagine having to wear handcuffs when you are innocent and the taste that leaves in one's mouth.

 

[PO2012]

PS - Kudos to you for what you have posted in this thread. However, what am I supposed to think when you write something to the effect of "I have had to serve warrants to arrest people where probably cause was questionable at best." Imagine having to wear handcuffs when you are innocent and the taste that leaves in one's mouth.

Hopefully you'll become angry enough that you start to demand the elimination of District Court Commissioners and insist that the State hire enough actual Judges and clerks to carry out the business of deciding whether or not to issue statements of charges. As the system stands now protective orders and arrest warrants are issued in assembly line fashion.

As for the warrants themselves they were for serious crimes such as burglary and assault. I may think that the statement of probable cause is contrived but the fact remains that a duly empowered agent of the judiciary issued an arrest warrant for a certain person based upon the sworn written testimony of a citizen who stated, under penalty of perjury, that a violent felony was committed against him/her. For minor offenses (i.e. malicious destruction of property, theft less than $100 etc) a criminal summons is issued where I do not arrest the person but rather have them sign to attend a future court date.

Let me be very clear on something. As a Police Officer I take my oath of office seriously and if called upon to violate that oath I will refuse to do so as I have in the past. Make no mistake however, effecting an arrest on the basis of a warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and specifically describing the person to be seized and the charges that form the basis for that arrest is the very definition of proper, lawful and constitutional Policing. I am delivering the person so seized to the Judge whether directly or indirectly by means of a jailer to answer the charges and have them disposed of in the proper manner. This is what the Constitution demands and that is what I do and will continue to do. I am not going to stop arresting people for crimes against persons and property or for breaches of the peace simply because the criminal justice system in Maryland has its defects. That type of behavior would lead to chaos, the type of chaos that exists in third world nations and I for one will not contribute to that.

 

[fabsroman]

Hopefully you'll become angry enough that you start to demand the elimination of District Court Commissioners and insist that the State hire enough actual Judges and clerks to carry out the business of deciding whether or not to issue statements of charges. As the system stands now protective orders and arrest warrants are issued in assembly line fashion.

As for the warrants themselves they were for serious crimes such as burglary and assault. I may think that the statement of probable cause is contrived but the fact remains that a duly empowered agent of the judiciary issued an arrest warrant for a certain person based upon the sworn written testimony of a citizen who stated, under penalty of perjury, that a violent felony was committed against him/her. For minor offenses (i.e. malicious destruction of property, theft less than $100 etc) a criminal summons is issued where I do not arrest the person but rather have them sign to attend a future court date.

Let me be very clear on something. As a Police Officer I take my oath of office seriously and if called upon to violate that oath I will refuse to do so as I have in the past. Make no mistake however, effecting an arrest on the basis of a warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and specifically describing the person to be seized and the charges that form the basis for that arrest is the very definition of proper, lawful and constitutional Policing. I am delivering the person so seized to the Judge whether directly or indirectly by means of a jailer to answer the charges and have them disposed of in the proper manner. This is what the Constitution demands and that is what I do and will continue to do. I am not going to stop arresting people for crimes against persons and property or for breaches of the peace simply because the criminal justice system in Maryland has its defects. That type of behavior would lead to chaos, the type of chaos that exists in third world nations and I for one will not contribute to that.

Really have to wonder how many people get prosecuted for perjury or more, for all these bogus protective orders and warrants where "probable cause is questionable at best". I've represented clients on both sides of the protective order issue and there are some that are completely pathetic. However, there are some where the protective order, and probably more, is warranted. It drives me nuts when somebody files for a protective order and then never shows up at the hearing to enforce it or decides to drop it at the hearing.

I agree with you that you have to enforce the laws and arrest people when a Judge issues a warrant for their arrest. What I have a problem with is the totality of everything. It sucks to get charged with something and have to go to Court to answer those charges when one is innocent. At the minimum it costs one time, but could cost one significant money to hire an attorney, and could even result in worse (e.g., guilty finding, issuance of a protective order, confiscation of firearms).