Darkemp
Ultimate Member
Looks like they got a criminal supplier of other criminals, good job to MSP I’d say. They didn’t hit him with the SBR charge yet though it seems.
MSP Arrest Man on Gun Charges (Cecil County)
- Thread starter KRC
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Convicted felon, AMF, tough shit for him.
Yes what is an unregistered AR15? What does that mean?
All of the paperwork I have ever filled out said boldly “Voluntary Registration”.
forkauto
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I always thought it was ok as long as it wasn’t mixed???
Growler215
Ultimate Member
I think they more than suspected something, had him under surveillance, and used the window tint as an excuse to pull him over.
That AR is clearly an SBR. Would be even with a brace, with the vertical fore grip.
I think that's the " unregistered firearm" charge.
Looks to me like what some are calling a faux supressor is a KAK flash can.
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
This. The tint is definitely the "get in the car" gateway drug.
deathracer
Active Member
- Feb 14, 2010
- 108
Yep, that forearm grip and stock look like no no's as well if not registered as MSP claim.
deathracer
Active Member
- Feb 14, 2010
- 108
I'm betting the AR sealed his fate.
daNattyFatty
Ultimate Member
Not likely. Prohibited is prohibited. It's not like they were going to let him go upon finding "only" a handgun.
sbmike
Ultimate Member
Good on the MSP.
But does anyone wonder, in this era of unequal treatment, what the result would have been if this had been a "yute" in downtown Baltimore?
But does anyone wonder, in this era of unequal treatment, what the result would have been if this had been a "yute" in downtown Baltimore?
Without more detail about the interaction with the suspect, I’m curious as to how a window tint violation sparked them to seek and obtain thru a judge a “probable cause” search warrant for the vehicle. Don’t the police have to say why they want a warrant when they approach a judge for such things? I guess we don’t have all of the facts, it seems to me the police caught a lucky break with this one, or like several have said, they may have already had him in their sights.Stopped for illegal window tinting
Didn’t we have a thread recently where several members expresses rather cavalier opinions about tinting.
daNattyFatty
Ultimate Member
Uh, they didn’t seek probable cause through a judge. They develop it through their investigation and observations. The search warrant was sought because they likely had probable cause to believe that more firearms would be at the prohibited person’s residence. A judge only reviewed and authorized the warrant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Moonlighter
Noob
If you're a convicted felon, don't LEO's have the authority (without your consent) to search your vehicle if stopped? Or, is that for peeps that are on probation/parole? I remember seeing something mentioned about this on Cops or Live PD, back in the good ol' days when we actually had cop shows on TV.
Maybe if you are on parole. I can’t imagine it being Constitutional to just search a felon who payed his/her debt.
daNattyFatty
Ultimate Member
There is no “convicted felon” exception to the 4th Amendment. I can’t speak for what parole & probation agents can do, but in my 17 LEO years, I’ve never been a part of such a practice or heard of such a search being done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Terry vs Ohio basically said if an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has a weapon which puts the officer at risk, he can search the individual. IANAL and time has dimmed my memory so don't start throwing darts. 
Moonlighter
Noob
It might have been a State law but there seems to be some validity to the concept.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...ch-you-and-your-stuff-if-youre-on-parole.html
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of many states protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. These constitutional rules mean that a police officers typically need a specific indication of criminal activity or evidence before conducting a search. Often, they need a warrant.
But when people get out of prison on parole, they agree to comply with certain conditions. State laws often specify the conditions. And a common condition is that the parolee has to submit to searches by law enforcement.
Very few cases in the federal system involve parole—in its place now is supervised release, which also carries conditions. Federal statutes give courts discretion to create special conditions for people on supervised release, and submitting to warrantless searches can be one such condition. (U.S. v. Hanrahan, 508 F.3d 962 (10th Cir. 2007); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).)
Why Impose Search Conditions?
Courts often consider parolees to be in "constructive custody" of the government. In other words, courts have the view that the government has control over parolees even though the former prisoners are out in society. And courts believe that the government has a valid interest in keeping tabs on its parolees. So, warrantless searches that would have been illegal had ordinary citizens been involved are often lawful where parolees are the subjects.
Another rationale for allowing warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees is the perspective that parole is a privilege rather than a right. Parole doesn't come automatically: Inmates typically become eligible for it and then have to be granted it. Along these lines, most courts find that parolees have less of a right to privacy than other members of society. (U.S. v. Massey, 461 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2006); Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).)
What Search Conditions Allow
Search conditions typically say that former offenders agree to submit to searches of themselves, their residences, and their vehicles or property. Courts might find that searchable "property" includes electronic possessions, like an email account. (Sullivan v. Bunting, 975 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio 2012).)
Sometimes a parole search must be based on "reasonable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful activity. Often, though, the search doesn't require that kind of basis. Law enforcement generally can't, however, perform searches just to harass.
While search conditions often list the supervising officer as the one who may conduct searches, other law enforcement officers may also be allowed to perform them. Even when an agreement doesn't specifically authorize searches by other members of law enforcement, a court might determine that police officers may conduct searches that supervising officers could. (For example, see U.S. v. Woodland, 607 F.Supp.2d 904 (C.D. Ill. 2009).)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...ch-you-and-your-stuff-if-youre-on-parole.html
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of many states protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. These constitutional rules mean that a police officers typically need a specific indication of criminal activity or evidence before conducting a search. Often, they need a warrant.
But when people get out of prison on parole, they agree to comply with certain conditions. State laws often specify the conditions. And a common condition is that the parolee has to submit to searches by law enforcement.
Very few cases in the federal system involve parole—in its place now is supervised release, which also carries conditions. Federal statutes give courts discretion to create special conditions for people on supervised release, and submitting to warrantless searches can be one such condition. (U.S. v. Hanrahan, 508 F.3d 962 (10th Cir. 2007); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).)
Why Impose Search Conditions?
Courts often consider parolees to be in "constructive custody" of the government. In other words, courts have the view that the government has control over parolees even though the former prisoners are out in society. And courts believe that the government has a valid interest in keeping tabs on its parolees. So, warrantless searches that would have been illegal had ordinary citizens been involved are often lawful where parolees are the subjects.
Another rationale for allowing warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees is the perspective that parole is a privilege rather than a right. Parole doesn't come automatically: Inmates typically become eligible for it and then have to be granted it. Along these lines, most courts find that parolees have less of a right to privacy than other members of society. (U.S. v. Massey, 461 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2006); Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).)
What Search Conditions Allow
Search conditions typically say that former offenders agree to submit to searches of themselves, their residences, and their vehicles or property. Courts might find that searchable "property" includes electronic possessions, like an email account. (Sullivan v. Bunting, 975 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio 2012).)
Sometimes a parole search must be based on "reasonable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful activity. Often, though, the search doesn't require that kind of basis. Law enforcement generally can't, however, perform searches just to harass.
While search conditions often list the supervising officer as the one who may conduct searches, other law enforcement officers may also be allowed to perform them. Even when an agreement doesn't specifically authorize searches by other members of law enforcement, a court might determine that police officers may conduct searches that supervising officers could. (For example, see U.S. v. Woodland, 607 F.Supp.2d 904 (C.D. Ill. 2009).)
Terry vs Ohio basically said if an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has a weapon which puts the officer at risk, he can search the individual. IANAL and time has dimmed my memory so don't start throwing darts.
Last time I got pulled over (tail light) the cop asked at least 10 times if I had guns in the car. He also went nuts when I pulled my license out of my wallet, and he saw my HQL. Thought it was a carry permit and that I had a gun I didn’t tell him about. My only answer “there is nothing illegal in the car” Weird dude. I have a small AR silhouette sticker on my bumper. Thank God that’s not reasonable enough suspicion. He’d love the chest rig and body armor I keep in my trunk.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Just want to thank the extremely awesome folks at Tyler Firearms (2 Viewers)- Started by GenoBluzGtr
- Replies: 4
-
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-