Cops confiscate woman's legal gun coillection without warrant and won't return them

[Gunner3456]

No, I don't like it at all and it is unconstitutional. We don't know all the facts of the case as you say but until a citizen is convicted by a jury of their peers there can be no taking of any personal effects, barring a duly constituted warrant which they did not have

Oh, you are so, so wrong.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Oh, you are so, so wrong.

Someone hasn't read the Constitution

 

[Blitzkrieg]

6th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[note 1][1]

You will also note that the crazy concept of head doctors with any sort of authority did not exist back then.. it is a modern farce

 

[hermannr]

You may not like it, but MD's are basically board certified officers of the state. If the diagnosis is incorrect, than the doctor is subject to malpractice. If someone is considered a danger to themselves or the community through an assessment of mental instability, than those are the breaks.

It's too bad that this important piece of information didn't come out in the original piece. But such is the flaw of the internet.

You are making assumptions: #1: How was the information transmitted to the police. Phone call? (how did the police verify the identity of the caller if it was a phone call?) Written submission: (again, how did the Police identify the identity of the writer?)

The fly in this ointment is that the police did not arrive with a warrent. I still think it was the landlord, he was just too willing to let the police into the appartment and have them conficate the weapons.

The stuff I read specifically stated they took the weapons without a warrent. For them to do this, the police must have assumed the they did not have enough evidence to convince a judge to give them one. There is nothing to stop them from staying right there at the apartment and sending, calling in, to have someone get a warrent to legally take the weapons.

That they did not do so says they did not think they had sufficent PC.

 

[Gunner3456]

Someone hasn't read the Constitution

All through our history we have had mental institutions where people are locked up against their will because they are a danger to themselves or others. People lose their drivers licenses based only on a report from their doctor. Then they can go take a test and get it back - or not.

They used to use the term "declared incompetent" but the new term is "declared incapacitated." That requires tests by two doctors and an adjudication by the court. The court may then appoint the person a guardian, and that guardian might be a mental institution.

For short term, someone may be locked up upon just a doctor's recommendation "to promote the general welfare" if the person is deemed to be a danger to themselves or the public.

If this were truly unconstitutional, someone would have had it ruled as such 100 years ago.

 

[Gunner3456]

You are making assumptions: #1: How was the information transmitted to the police. Phone call? (how did the police verify the identity of the caller if it was a phone call?) Written submission: (again, how did the Police identify the identity of the writer?)

The fly in this ointment is that the police did not arrive with a warrent. I still think it was the landlord, he was just too willing to let the police into the appartment and have them conficate the weapons.

The stuff I read specifically stated they took the weapons without a warrent. For them to do this, the police must have assumed the they did not have enough evidence to convince a judge to give them one. There is nothing to stop them from staying right there at the apartment and sending, calling in, to have someone get a warrent to legally take the weapons.

That they did not do so says they did not think they had sufficent PC.

To believe that police always need a warrant is naive. For instance, if you are arrested for drunk driving they must take an inventory of the contents of your car when it is towed. They had been asked to help find someone who had escaped from a mental institution, and that person was deemed to be a danger to herself or others.

If they arrive at your home and you and your wife are duking it out, they can enter and stop it. They can disarm you. They can take you to jail and lock you up until you get your day in court.

I could go on...

 

[hermannr]

To believe that police always need a warrant is naive. For instance, if you are arrested for drunk driving they must take an inventory of the contents of your car when it is towed. They had been asked to help find someone who had escaped from a mental institution, and that person was deemed to be a danger to herself or others.

If they arrive at your home and you and your wife are duking it out, they can enter and stop it. They can disarm you. They can take you to jail and lock you up until you get your day in court.

I could go on...

Wrong, they cannot legally take anything in a search, and have it worth anything in court later, without a proper warrent. We are not talking about a DUI or any person "under arrest" we are talking about a search of a persons personal stuff, when that person is not there, and has not consented to that search.

Can police ask a landlord to open an appartment for a "health and welfare" inspection? (that is, is there a dead person inside?) Yes, but without a warrent, they can do no more, even if the find a meth lab or some other illegal operation. They then need to ask for (and convince a judge they need because of some illegal activity) a warrent before they can take anything.

 

[Gunner3456]

Wrong, they cannot legally take anything in a search, and have it worth anything in court later, without a proper warrent. We are not talking about a DUI or any person "under arrest" we are talking about a search of a persons personal stuff, when that person is not there, and has not consented to that search.

Can police ask a landlord to open an appartment for a "health and welfare" inspection? (that is, is there a dead person inside?) Yes, but without a warrent, they can do no more, even if the find a meth lab or some other illegal operation. They then need to ask for (and convince a judge they need because of some illegal activity) a warrent before they can take anything.

You are completely ignoring mental health laws, and an issue of an escaped person deemed to be a danger to herself or the public.

Get on the right page.

 

[hermannr]

You are completely ignoring mental health laws, and an issue of an escaped person deemed to be a danger to herself or the public.

Get on the right page.

I know and understand mental health law very well, probably better than you do. Do you realize it takes a JUDGE! to commit a person for mental heath problems? I doctor cannot involuntarily commit anyone. That is probably the reason the police did not have PC to obtain a warrent.

A medical doctor, or other licensed qualiied person can request a person be involuntarily committed, but only a JUDGE can actually involuntarily commit a person for mental health reasons.

An indicatin that this person was not voluntarily, or involuntarily committed is, those people who are, cannot just walk out of a hospital, they are locked up in a secure area of the hospital, not in a general hospital bed.

If, in fact (not proven or stated) that this person was even in the VA hospital, nothing stated says she was in the secure mental health area, or involuntarily committed...only that the message from ???? said she walked out of the hospital... Oh my, she forgot to check out, for whatever reason.

 

[Gunner3456]

I know and understand mental health law very well, probably better than you do. Do you realize it takes a JUDGE! to commit a person for mental heath problems? I doctor cannot involuntarily commit anyone. That is probably the reason the police did not have PC to obtain a warrent.

A medical doctor, or other licensed qualiied person can request a person be involuntarily committed, but only a JUDGE can actually involuntarily commit a person for mental health reasons.

An indicatin that this person was not voluntarily, or involuntarily committed is, those people who are, cannot just walk out of a hospital, they are locked up in a secure area of the hospital, not in a general hospital bed.

If, in fact (not proven or stated) that this person was even in the VA hospital, nothing stated says she was in the secure mental health area, or involuntarily committed...only that the message from ???? said she walked out of the hospital... Oh my, she forgot to check out, for whatever reason.

I can't help you. Unsubscribed.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

hermannr,

You are grossly misinformed on your beliefs of how involuntary commitment works and on items seized during a non-warrant search. If a doctor declares you a risk he has a specific amount of time to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. His declaration is still legally binding for that grace period and can be acted upon by authorities. They can also detain you without a court order for a specific amount of time without your consent or the order of a court.

Also, if I chased an armed felon into a residence and he stashed his firearm under a bed I would have cause to search for that firearm without a warrant. Once I found that weapon, even though I had no warrant for the search, it would still be admissible in court. A lot of people refer to these as "hot pursuit" laws. If the officers were acting on an immediate order of a licensed official they would not need a warrant to act.

In this case, if the woman had actually been declared a danger I am okay with removing her weapons. Having worked in the field for years I know exactly how hard it is to get a doctor to make that declaration.

 

[Trlsmn]

As already stated in this thread there is not enough information out to make an informed judgment on if this was the right or wrong thing to do. I'll reserve judgment until I hear more facts.

 

[hermannr]

hermannr,

You are grossly misinformed on your beliefs of how involuntary commitment works and on items seized during a non-warrant search. If a doctor declares you a risk he has a specific amount of time to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. His declaration is still legally binding for that grace period and can be acted upon by authorities. They can also detain you without a court order for a specific amount of time without your consent or the order of a court.

Also, if I chased an armed felon into a residence and he stashed his firearm under a bed I would have cause to search for that firearm without a warrant. Once I found that weapon, even though I had no warrant for the search, it would still be admissible in court. A lot of people refer to these as "hot pursuit" laws. If the officers were acting on an immediate order of a licensed official they would not need a warrant to act.

In this case, if the woman had actually been declared a danger I am okay with removing her weapons. Having worked in the field for years I know exactly how hard it is to get a doctor to make that declaration.

First statement, no-one has published that it was proven that any Dr. actually make any statement, only that the police received a message...OK? You cannot judge based on a news report.

Secondly, I know first hand how involuntary commitment (at least in WA) works. My wife accidently took more of a prescription medicine she had been given (prescription had been changed and she took the old quanity of the new strength. I read all the information I can on any medicine that comes in this house, and it said if someone takes too much of this particular medicine you are to take the medicine and patient to the emergency room. I did, and my wife spent the night in intensive care because of it.

After the night in intensive care there was a psycharitrist who interviewed her, and an officious "licensed" woman. The woman wanted to lock her up "for her own good" (the Judge did not agree and she came home with me.) The Psychritrist said she suffered from a "extreme lack of sleep" (because of her problem, she was not sleeping.)

Now, both my wife and I own several firearms and have WA CPLs, no-one came to "hold" our/her firearms while she was in the hospital (one day) or any such thing. Even if they had, they could only have done so with orders from that Judge. Enough already.

 

[darkminstrel]

I know and understand mental health law very well, probably better than you do. Do you realize it takes a JUDGE! to commit a person for mental heath problems? I doctor cannot involuntarily commit anyone. That is probably the reason the police did not have PC to obtain a warrent.

This is partially true. In the past 5 years a number of states have tried or succeeded in putting laws on the books that allow doctors to hold a person or remove their firearms if there is sufficient medical/psychological cause. I think this case is an example of that thinking. If the woman was seen as a danger to herself the doctor could hold her, inform police, and then let them take action via the judge.

 

[Gunner3456]

It appears she has a good lawyer..and by all rights..should win this.. However..she'd better be prepared to re-locate..far away from the area.. The harassment will be unbearable..not to mention the probable bogus citations..trumped up charges..etc..

Hard to say. Might depend on the department but my experience is the opposite. Many of you know I am suing the assistant chief of police of a large department here, and just won a long battle to get my CHL back. I'm not at all afraid to go into that town and did today. If any officer screws with me, I will immediately accuse him/her of harassing me over the other issue, because I will believe it's true. My attorney will make that accusation to the State Certification Board.

No officer wants that hassle, even if he wins.

My belief is that I'm poison and "hands off" in that town.

 

[hermannr]

This is partially true. In the past 5 years a number of states have tried or succeeded in putting laws on the books that allow doctors to hold a person or remove their firearms if there is sufficient medical/psychological cause. I think this case is an example of that thinking. If the woman was seen as a danger to herself the doctor could hold her, inform police, and then let them take action via the judge.

I think it is possible the Dr statement didn't actually come from a Dr, (possible, not proven or stated in what they have released, but possible). However it is also obvious she was not committed (if the DR's statement was real, the commitment review judge did not agree), because the legal complaint is that they took her collection without cause, and that the weapons were all legal for her to own. If she had been committed, it would not have legal for her to have them.

 

[SPU]

No, I don't like it at all and it is unconstitutional. We don't know all the facts of the case as you say but until a citizen is convicted by a jury of their peers there can be no taking of any personal effects, barring a duly constituted warrant which they did not have

A doctor or other mental health professional cannot order personal possessions to be taken. But if there is a reasonable belief someone is a danger to self or others they are required morally and legally to try to ensure safety. This is usually attempted by trying to call/talk to the person and determine that. If that is not possible and threats or behaviors have occured, a welfare check from police is requested. The police then decide (and many times do not) whether the person is an imminent risk to self or others. Police have the legal right to bring the person to a hospital for evaluation. Then, depending on the State or Commonwealth (laws vary) the court is notified of the action and the court has 3-5, etc. days to hold a hearing before a judge, and the person is either committed to treatment or ordered released. I have seen many people ordered released, and some committed. In Oregon commitments can last up to 180 days.

The landmark case was Tarasoff

<broken link removed>

 

[hermannr]

A doctor or other mental health professional cannot order personal possessions to be taken. But if there is a reasonable belief someone is a danger to self or others they are required morally and legally to try to ensure safety. This is usually attempted by trying to call/talk to the person and determine that. If that is not possible and threats or behaviors have occured, a welfare check from police is requested. The police then decide (and many times do not) whether the person is an imminent risk to self or others. Police have the legal right to bring the person to a hospital for evaluation. Then, depending on the State or Commonwealth (laws vary) the court is notified of the action and the court has 3-5, etc. days to hold a hearing before a judge, and the person is either committed to treatment or ordered released. I ahve seen many people ordered released, adn some committed. In Oregon commitments can last up to 180 days.

The landmark case was Tarasoff

<broken link removed>

In WA they can hold you a maximum of 24 hours before you receive a hearing. The patient can have legal and personal second opinion type representation. If the Judge agrees, You can be held a max of 14 days, then you must have another hearing before the judge. That is why WA Law says Involuntary commitment OVER 14 days is ground to not be allowed to have a CPL.

If you are involuntarily committed, and the judge knows you own firearms, thay can be held, AFTER the hearing. It is the judge that orders the cancelation of your CPL and removal, or transfer to husband/wife/mother/father etc to hold until the commitment is handled. Final disposistion is from the Judge, not the Dr, not the police, and then only after a proper hearing.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

No, I don't like it at all and it is unconstitutional. We don't know all the facts of the case as you say but until a citizen is convicted by a jury of their peers there can be no taking of any personal effects, barring a duly constituted warrant which they did not have

Sorry, but that is wrong. if an officer pulls you over for DUI they can confiscate your car right on the spot. Long before you are convicted. If an officer catches you commit a crime with a weapon they can confiscate the weapon before you are found guilty. There are many other example too.

 

[mjbskwim]

Funny how these threads become "who can google more mis-information" and " who can miss quote the Constitution more"
Kinda "he said she said"