Recent Visits from the MSP - Some Initial Thoughts on This Issue

[Lex Armarum]

In a recent thread about a visit from the MSP, I posted that folks should invoke their rights under the 4th and 5th (via the 14th) Amendments of the United States Constitution should the MSP arrive at a person's doorstep and request to see a firearm (this is also referred to a requesting to conduct a consented or consensual search). After thinking about the situation for a minute, I realized that there is a third way we can handle this situation.

If you have recently purchased an allegedly "unregulated" firearm from an out-of-state vendor and did not complete Maryland's regulated firearms paperwork (and this scenario might even extend to in-state vendors as well), then you are at risk of receiving a visit from the MSP. I recommend that you contact an attorney in advance of receiving this visit and form an attorney-client relationship. Once established, if the police show up at your door, you can advise them that you have retained counsel to handle the matter at hand and any requests or questions should go through your attorney's office. Attorneys will charge for this service but this solution is better then simply declaring your rights to the police without anyone behind you (figuratively) to back your play.

You are more than welcome to contact me. My contact information is located in the Industry Partners section of this website. For convenience, here it is:

Jeremy Robinson
Law Office of J. Robinson, Esquire LLC
(443) 535-1682
jrobinson@robinsonlaw.biz
[FONT=&quot]www.robinsonlaw.biz[/FONT]

I have somewhat of a unique practice and can provide you with the initial legal advice you need to deal with the MSPs somewhat dubious tactics.

Please remember that while the MSP is "playing nice" and not confiscating firearms at this time, they are investigating a potential "crime" when they are talking to you and your compliance with their request to conduct a consented "search" is providing the MSP with the evidence to hang you should they have a change of heart.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Just some friendly advice free of charge...

 

[pitpawten]

Thanks for the wise words!

I'm sure you'll be getting several calls

 

[aquaman]

thanks for posting this Rusty, im glad we have guys like you on mds looking out for the folks.

 

[Wojo]

Rusty, any advice on recording the encounter/visit?

 

[Benanov]

Once established, if the police show up at your door, you can advise them that you have retained counsel to handle the matter at hand and any requests or questions should go through your attorney's office. Attorneys will charge for this service but this solution is better then simply declaring your rights to the police without anyone behind you (figuratively) to back your play.

For the love of all of your rights, listen to this man. He speaks the truth.

IANAL - I would add two pieces of advice.

1: LISTEN TO WHAT YOUR ATTORNEY SAYS; DO WHAT YOUR ATTORNEY SAYS TO DO.
You're paying them. Their services are not cheap. Make your money count.

2: Except as overridden by #1, SHUT UP.
Attorneys work best when they don't have to undo damage that came out of your mouth.

 

[Lex Armarum]

Rusty, any advice on recording the encounter/visit?

Don't make any quick, sudden moves and be polite and courteous. If they have a warrant, make sure they provide you with a copy. Make note of everything that occurs during the search: where, how, why, etc. They will corral you when they conduct the search so your movement will be severely restricted. However, you have the right to be present as they conduct the search. What I'm more concerned about is the police conducting a dynamic entry at 4am because you demanded to see a warrant and firearms are involved; this situation has the possibility of getting someone killed or severely hurt unless someone can intercede (an attorney is the ideal person).

 

[Benanov]

Rusty, any advice on recording the encounter/visit?

To the best of my non-lawyer knowledge: police doing their public duties out in a public place may be recorded. In your home...less clear.

Cell phones are not weapons, and recording the cops in a public place is not illegal. Any cop that is feeding you either of those lines is lying.


Source:
I used to work with a man named Anthony Graber.

 

[Wojo]

Don't make any quick, sudden moves and be polite and courteous. If they have a warrant, make sure they provide you with a copy. Make note of everything that occurs during the search: where, how, why, etc. They will corral you when they conduct the search so your movement will be severely restricted. However, you have the right to be present as they conduct the search. What I'm more concerned about is the police conducting a dynamic entry at 4am because you demanded to see a warrant and firearms are involved; this situation has the possibility of getting someone killed or severely hurt unless someone can intercede (an attorney is the ideal person).

We all appreciate the advice. I hope nobody else here experiences one of these early am visits but if they do we know who we can contact.

Thanks

 

[fabsroman]

Rusty, any advice on recording the encounter/visit?

It is illegal to record a conversation in Maryland unless you have the consent of the other party. Law enforcement will rarely, if ever, give you consent to record the incident. Now, that might be different when a search warrant is being executed and they might grant you permission to record the search of your house, but it isn't guaranteed. I have found that they do NOT like to be recorded.

Simply put, Maryland is a two party permission state. Meaning that both parties to the conversation need to give consent to the recording. If more than two parties are present, then ALL parties have to give consent.

Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.Code Ann. Sec. 10-402

Read this article:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal

 

[Wojo]

It is illegal to record a conversation in Maryland unless you have the consent of the other party. Law enforcement will rarely, if ever, give you consent to record the incident. Now, that might be different when a search warrant is being executed and they might grant you permission to record the search of your house, but it isn't guaranteed. I have found that they do NOT like to be recorded.

Simply put, Maryland is a two party permission state. Meaning that both parties to the conversation need to give consent to the recording. If more than two parties are present, then ALL parties have to give consent.

Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.Code Ann. Sec. 10-402

Read this article:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal

Not trying to hijack the thread and maybe i will send you a PM, but what if i have a survelance system with the appropraite notification signs...

And yes

 

[fabsroman]

Rusty has a pretty good idea here. Tell the officers that you do not understand all the laws and that you have an attorney on retainer. Give them your attorney's information and have them contact your attorney. Then, the attorney can meet with the officers and attempt to work out the matter. Best case scenario, MSP meet with you at the attorney's office and you complete the paperwork for the firearm without actually showing them the firearm.

What I would NOT do is answer broad questions that they ask. For instance, they asked one member on here with the Sig 556 if he had any other regulated firearms. He answered with a yes and then they asked to see them and the related paperwork. Once those questions start to come from law enforcement, the best thing to do is to remain silent or ask to speak to an attorney at that time. You should not allow law enforcement officers into your house without a warrant. If you feel like showing them the firearm in question that they have asked about because you do not want to get an attorney involved, then do so outside your house.

End of the day, I hope MSP keeps this amicable and only requires paperwork being submitted on these "regulated" firearms. It will really suck if they start arresting people over this and/or confiscating the weapons.

 

[dblas]

It is illegal to record a conversation in Maryland unless you have the consent of the other party. Law enforcement will rarely, if ever, give you consent to record the incident. Now, that might be different when a search warrant is being executed and they might grant you permission to record the search of your house, but it isn't guaranteed. I have found that they do NOT like to be recorded.

Simply put, Maryland is a two party permission state. Meaning that both parties to the conversation need to give consent to the recording. If more than two parties are present, then ALL parties have to give consent.

Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.Code Ann. Sec. 10-402

Read this article:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal

I believe that only applies to "wiretap" police are able to video record during a stop and business owners are able to record on their premises, both inside and out.

 

[fabsroman]

Not trying to hijack the thread and maybe i will send you a PM, but what if i have a survelance system with the appropraite notification signs...

And yes

If they know you are recording them and they continue to discuss the matter with you, then it is on them. To be ultra sure, I would tell them that the house is under contact surveillance and everything is being recorded. Hence, if they want to continue discussing the matter with you, it will be recorded.

I did this with an MTA officer at BWI. I was so pissed that I wanted to make sure that I got his name and badge number. This was in 2002 when the only thing I had in the car was a handheld cassette recorder for dictating memos/letters for the secretary to draft. So, I picked it up and he immediately told me I did not have permission to record the conversation. I told him that I was going to dictate his name and badge number into the device, and that if he did not want the conversation to be recorded then he needed to stop talking for a minute. He actually stopped talking.

If anything, that law really needs to be changed when it applies to law enforcement exercising their duties. They have the ability to kill people and put people in prison. At least we should have the ability to record what the heck they are doing.

 

[jkeys]

fyi, you can turn off sound recording on android phones while video taping, making things perfectly legal.

 

[fabsroman]

I believe that only applies to "wiretap" police are able to video record during a stop and business owners are able to record on their premises, both inside and out.

MD Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-401 Definitions (Maryland Code (2013 Edition))

(13) (i) "Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.

(ii) "Oral communication" does not include any electronic communication.

It applies to almost every oral communication. If you and I were to be talking in private and I recorded it without your consent, I would be breaking the law.

The statute does have a lot of exceptions and it is pretty long, but most of those exceptions are there for the benefit of law enforcement, not civilians. I can provide the entire statute for you if you like.

Now, law enforcement can record via dash cams because the conversation is not usually being recorded, only the actions of the officer and the civilian.

(3) applies to a private conversation between you and I, (4) is a bunch of law enforcement exceptions, and the list of exceptions goes on:

(3) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State.

(4) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication if:

1. The law enforcement officer initially lawfully detained a vehicle during a criminal investigation or for a traffic violation;

2. The law enforcement officer is a party to the oral communication;

3. The law enforcement officer has been identified as a law enforcement officer to the other parties to the oral communication prior to any interception;

4. The law enforcement officer informs all other parties to the communication of the interception at the beginning of the communication; and

5. The oral interception is being made as part of a video tape recording.

(ii) If all of the requirements of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph are met, an interception is lawful even if a person becomes a party to the communication following:

1. The identification required under subparagraph (i)3 of this paragraph; or

2. The informing of the parties required under subparagraph (i)4 of this paragraph.

(5) It is lawful under this subtitle for an officer, employee, or agent of a governmental emergency communications center to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the officer, agent, or employee is a party to a conversation concerning an emergency.

(6) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for law enforcement personnel to utilize body wires to intercept oral communications in the course of a criminal investigation if there is reasonable cause to believe that a law enforcement officer's safety may be in jeopardy.

(ii) Communications intercepted under this paragraph may not be recorded, and may not be used against the defendant in a criminal proceeding.

Rather pathetic that a law enforcement officer can unilaterally record a conversation without the civilian's consent, but a civilian cannot unilaterally record a conversation with a law enforcement officer without the officer's consent.

 

[Lex Armarum]

Gents let's stay on topic for this thread and not get sidetracked.

 

[CLP]

Can someone explain what is being alleged as "regulated" in these cases? From what I read in other posts it is anything that doesn't have "Colt AR15 HBAR Sporter" stamped on it? Im lost

 

[Lex Armarum]

Can someone explain what is being alleged as "regulated" in these cases? From what I read in other posts it is anything that doesn't have "Colt AR15 HBAR Sporter" stamped on it? Im lost

Any AR type (or scary looking type/EBR) rifle that is not stamped Colt AR15 HBAR Sporter.

 

[CLP]

Any AR type (or scary looking type/EBR) rifle that is not stamped Colt AR15 HBAR Sporter.

So if you have owned a firearm since 2012, that was previously considered "unregulated" and it was sold C&C as an HBAR in maryland, the MSP will now come and tell you it is magically not and force you to register?

 

[BigToe]

So if you have owned a firearm since 2012, that was previously considered "unregulated" and it was sold C&C as an HBAR in maryland, the MSP will now come and tell you it is magically not and force you to register?

I'd like to know this too, because I bought a Rock River Coyote rifle online, had it shipped to a MD FFL, and they transfered it as unregulated. Do I seriously have to worry about MSP showing up to my door?