Cops Confiscate Lady’s Arsenal; Motive Pending

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

not just taken through the motions to get the firearms back, but to make the point that when they are taken illegally, people will lose their jobs for illegal actions.

Quote

give them back, and reimburse her for the trouble and expense this has caused

It's Breaking and Entering, and THEFT

Lose their jobs? No - go to JAIL



In these cases it needs to be handled exactly the same as if a regular civilian did the exact same thing

Not going to happen... brotherhood first.

There aren't many crimes that a police officer commit that result in that officer being treated like a regular citizen.

Exactly. Take a look at a shooting where the person shot by a cop doesn't even have a gun. They get a reprimand. We go to jail. There is a double standard and not in our favor.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Exactly. Take a look at a shooting where the person shot by a cop doesn't even have a gun. They get a reprimand. We go to jail. There is a double standard and not in our favor.

True enough. Does your job require you to confront criminals who are frequently armed? If a suspect is ordered to stop and put their hands up, and instead they reach into their waistband or pocket, should the cops wait until the suspect pulls a gun? If a gun is pulled, should they wait until he gets a couple of shots off, so they can be sure it isn't a toy gun? Should the law mandate that the criminals have to fire first before the police can respond?

prosecuted, though perhaps not as often as should be the case.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

"Her cache somehow caught the attention of Lakewood Police, who paid a visit last September. When they found Rice wasn’t home, they asked an obliging employee of the complex to open up the apartment without her consent. Once inside, they raided the gun rack, making off with 13 firearms worth around $15,000. The only problem: They had no apparent reason to.

"When Rice kindly asked to have her toys returned, the cops acknowledged that the weapons were legally owned. But they refused to return them without a court order..."[I have underlined part for emphasis]

Personally I think a warrant should be needed to seize guns or any property, except in a situation where there is an immediate threat to safety. If no charges are filed, or if the gun owner is not involuntarily committed after a proper psychiatric assessment and appropriate court procedures, I think the guns should be returned immediately without need for a court order or payment of any impound fees.

That being said, something is missing from the story in this case. Why were the police at that house? I doubt they pick houses to search (without a warrant) at random just so they can harass legal gun owners. They obviously were responding to some specific information regarding Ms Rice. Without knowing the reason for the interest, we can't know if they were unreasonable or not in entering the house and removing the guns. Perhaps (to speculate) someone filed a complaint that she had threatened violence. Perhaps a family member was concerned about her state of mind, and was worried about suicide. Often police are not able to release the name of the complainant; if they couldn't hold reports in confidence few people would ever report suspected criminal activity. Without knowing why the police went to her house in the first place there is no way to know if her rights were violated by the initial seizure, and I think it's premature to call for firing anybody. That being said, since there has been no subsequent charges the police should stop stalling and immediately return her property.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[BoogeyMan 0]

This case, on the face, is far worse than a simple B&E. Armed, trained agents of the government, without probable cause, illegally entered a private, secured habitation, removed privately owned property... so on and so forth.
This case is a textbook, classic example of 4th, 5th, 14th etal amendment(s) violation. The warrantless search rules are not in play anywhere if the events are as related in the original post.
The lady should do well ( $$$) after/when the dust settles.

[nanook 1]

Or it could have been legal. After all, this happened over a year ago and there's been no update on the why they were confiscated. There's just a court order to get the guns a year after the seizure.

Probably what happened is someone close to her (she's an Army Veteran) felt she was a threat to herself; hadn't heard from her in a while or didn't report to her therapy for a while, spooked and called the police for assistance. This happens a lot, actually. The police doesn't have to tell anyone about a victim(suspect?) personal HIPAA related issues. The police demand a court order to get the weapons back so they won't be held responsible when they release the guns back to her. Or maybe there's a year wait requirement to reclaim property. Either way, it is suspicious that there is almost a whole year to get an order out with all the resources that she as a Veteran has.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[BoogeyMan 0]

Very possible...
Except, the "probable cause" issue is an immutable mandate on the fuzz/ government.
Any individual can be brought to the attention of APS or other government agencies, but the subject is ENTITLED to due process prior to any adverse action by any agency. That is to say, the agency must prove that there is a reality, not just an accusation involved.
Unauthorized entry, and confiscation of private property is unconstitutional. There are indeed exceptions, or warrantless searches, but this incident, as related, fails to meet any of the criteria required for a warrantless search, much less the issuance of a order to search & seize. The lady should have her property returned, along with punitive and compensatory damages awarded. Oh yeah.

[nanook 1]

Quote

That is to say, the agency must prove that there is a reality, not just an accusation involved.

All the VA or any hospital has to do is say she is at risk. If family has release of those papers, it'll only take a second.

Quote

but this incident, as related, fails to meet any of the criteria required for a warrantless search, much less the issuance of a order to search & seize.

No. The article fails to supply any criteria. We don't know why there's no more information. There is very little info on this incident except what's on a crappy, highly opinionated piece.

We are both theorizing here. To be truthful, I would rather your theory being the right one.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[BoogeyMan 0]

"Her cache somehow caught the attention of Lakewood Police, who paid a visit last September. When they found Rice wasn’t home, they asked an obliging employee of the complex to open up the apartment without her consent. Once inside, they raided the gun rack, making off with 13 firearms worth around $15,000. The only problem: They had no apparent reason to."
This is the only info we have to go by. Yes, we are extrapolating, somewhat, but the search must be deemed illegal if the story is accurate. Besides, there is also no mention if an arrest, either.
The VA must rely on the opinion of a Psychiatrist or Psychologist who has made an in person examination of the subject, PRIOR to making a move on a patient. Only by a Court Order, again after due process, can the VA divulge any info on a patient. Doctor/ Patient privilege. Florida has a Baker Act, which is too deep to discuss here. I'm sure other states have similar legislation. We do agree on the thrust of the discussion, however.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Exactly. Take a look at a shooting where the person shot by a cop doesn't even have a gun. They get a reprimand. We go to jail. There is a double standard and not in our favor.

this is totally different - you are talking about a personal confrontation where the suspect could be doing anything - that discussion requires review of the specifics

this situation, if you feel you must compare it to murder, would be if a cop took a sniper rifle and randomly shot someone in cold blood - in that case, I'd absolutely want the shooter to be prosecuted just exactly as if his career was plumber, or banker, etc.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wayneflorida 0]

A friend's daughter just went through a divorce. During marraige her husband wanted a pistol and made her get CW permit (Florida), and had her buy the gun he picked out. He was from Honduras and might have had some infraction in the past that prevented him from buying. She didn't want the gun but did it for him.

During divorce she didn't feel safe with the pistol around and took it voluntarily to the police to hold until the divorce was done.

After divorce, police made her go through the courts to get the gun back. Police had no problem with giving it back but just wanted the courts to say it was ok to cover their butts.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

During divorce she didn't feel safe with the pistol around and took it voluntarily to the police to hold until the divorce was done.

better to give it to a trusted friend, eh? What if she suddenly felt a need to have it?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

the woman should shoot those cops, i mean, the police were not there to protect her, she has to defend her property!

So you approve of the police confiscating property for no reason without a court order?

Quote

oh, and i think that actually JR is secretly in love with christel!

I think it is actually the other way around. She comments on everything he does, but does not add anything of substance.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

the woman should shoot those cops, i mean, the police were not there to protect her, she has to defend her property!

So you approve of the police confiscating property for no reason without a court order?

Quote

oh, and i think that actually JR is secretly in love with christel!

I think it is actually the other way around. She comments on everything he does, but does not add anything of substance.

Arghhh - I really do not want to know *everything* he does

It's nice to note that JR and you are back, you already received *service instructions for the week*?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Arghhh - I really do not want to know *everything* he does Crazy

It's nice to note that JR and you are back, you already received *service instructions for the week*?

Ah more inane babel that adds nothing to the conversation.

My service instruction for the week is to provide facts and data... Maybe you should try it?

[JohnRich 4]

Update:

"Last month we brought you the story of Francesca Rice, an Iraq war veteran in Lakewood whose stockpile of licensed firearms was seized by cops. So Rice, whose service left her disabled, pursued justice the American way: By suing their ass.

"Since Scene first reported the story, Rice’s arsenal has been restocked and her legal action tabled.

"The incident started in September 2010, when Lakewood Police were asked to check on Rice by the VA hospital, where she’d been receiving treatment. Thirteen weapons — including a machine gun and sniper rifle — were taken when cops suspected Rice’s disability prevented her from owning them under Ohio law.

"Last week, with no further evidence from the VA that Rice couldn’t handle a gun, the police returned her weapons.

“'On the advice of my attorney,' says Rice, 'I have safely and legally stored my collection elsewhere.'”

Full story: http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/09/14/cops-confiscate-lakewood-ladys-arsenal-motive-pending-updated

[nanook 1]

This update sounds more like people worried about her than the original paranoid "cops behaving badly."

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

This update sounds more like people worried about her than the original paranoid "cops behaving badly."

Yes. The update shows that the original story was poorly-reported by the author. The original story says:

Her cache somehow caught the attention of Lakewood Police, who paid a visit last September. When they found Rice wasn’t home, they asked an obliging employee of the complex to open up the apartment without her consent. Once inside, they raided the gun rack, making off with 13 firearms worth around $15,000. The only problem: They had no apparent reason to.

However, the update says:

The incident started in September 2010, when Lakewood Police were asked to check on Rice by the VA hospital, where she’d been receiving treatment. Thirteen weapons — including a machine gun and sniper rifle — were taken when cops suspected Rice’s disability prevented her from owning them under Ohio law.

Leaves quite a different impression on the police motives, right?

In the end, the law and the Constitution prevailed, the cops were overruled, and the citizen was made whole. And that's the way it's supposed to be.

[kd5xb 1]

Ray Nagin HAS to be involved somehow.

I'm a jumper. Even though I don't always have money for jumps, and may not ever own a rig again, I'll always be a jumper.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Leaves quite a different impression on the police motives, right?

In the end, the law and the Constitution prevailed, the cops were overruled, and the citizen was made whole. And that's the way it's supposed to be.

Not entirely. She still needed to obtain a court order to get her illegally seized property back. Why?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Leaves quite a different impression on the police motives, right?

In the end, the law and the Constitution prevailed, the cops were overruled, and the citizen was made whole. And that's the way it's supposed to be.

Not entirely. She still needed to obtain a court order to get her illegally seized property back. Why?

Because sometimes The Man does the wrong thing; and it's human nature to circle the wagons and not admit you're wrong. But thank God we live in a country where The Rule of Law means something in practice and not just in theory. The courts are the instrument of that practice. Messy, but it beats a sharp stick in the eye.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Leaves quite a different impression on the police motives, right?

In the end, the law and the Constitution prevailed, the cops were overruled, and the citizen was made whole. And that's the way it's supposed to be.

Not entirely. She still needed to obtain a court order to get her illegally seized property back. Why?

Because sometimes The Man does the wrong thing; and it's human nature to circle the wagons and not admit you're wrong. But thank God we live in a country where The Rule of Law means something in practice and not just in theory. The courts are the instrument of that practice. Messy, but it beats a sharp stick in the eye.

but as we know with SLAPP suits, forcing people to the courts is often very effective against the little guy (or gal in this case).

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Leaves quite a different impression on the police motives, right?

In the end, the law and the Constitution prevailed, the cops were overruled, and the citizen was made whole. And that's the way it's supposed to be.

Not entirely. She still needed to obtain a court order to get her illegally seized property back. Why?

Because sometimes The Man does the wrong thing; and it's human nature to circle the wagons and not admit you're wrong. But thank God we live in a country where The Rule of Law means something in practice and not just in theory. The courts are the instrument of that practice. Messy, but it beats a sharp stick in the eye.

All true. None of which changes the fact that the local VA appears to have gone to the local PD without doing the paperwork, the local PD made entry into a home without a warrant, the local PD confiscated private property without a warrant and without asking a lawyer, the apartment complex let the local PD in without a warrant, and best of all the local PD forced her to take them to court to regain her property. All of that points to good reason to hire someone like you or lawrocket. I'd guess the PD is going to get the proverbial stick in the eye in the form of a judgment or $ettlement.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I'd guess the PD is going to get the proverbial stick in the eye in the form of a judgment or $ettlement.

It's doubtful that it would be much. Even a settlement would be guided by the potential exposure of what a jury might award if the case went to trial; and I don't see a Cleveland, OH area jury awarding very much on these particular facts. So it's not a particularly high-value/exposure case.

[Skyrad 0]

Hey its the 'land of the free' so they helped themselves.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca