Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[lucusloc]

Sure. Sue the hell out of them.

The more time goes on the more I loose respect for that profession.

The courts won't protect you on this one. Between the ruling that cars are part of the "public space" while on the public roads and multiple federal rulings on asset forfeiture searches and seizures there is lots of precedent than your "expectations of privacy" while in your car are next to nil. Until SCOTUS starts reversing a lot of these bad decisions that is the world we live in. The issue of seeing a gun case is especially poignant, because that could be construed as "probable cause" to suspect magazines are also present, and that would probably hold up in court under the current structure.

Of course this is all speculation until someone actually tries it in court. We won't know for sure until that happens, but as it currently stands I do not have a lot of faith that the test case will swing in our favor.

 

[1775usmc]

The courts won't protect you on this one. Between the ruling that cars are part of the "public space" while on the public roads and multiple federal rulings on asset forfeiture searches and seizures there is lots of precedent than your "expectations of privacy" while in your car are next to nil. Until SCOTUS starts reversing a lot of these bad decisions that is the world we live in. The issue of seeing a gun case is especially poignant, because that could be construed as "probable cause" to suspect magazines are also present, and that would probably hold up in court under the current structure.

Of course this is all speculation until someone actually tries it in court. We won't know for sure until that happens, but as it currently stands I do not have a lot of faith that the test case will swing in our favor.

You assume that on any traffic stop LE has the lawful jurisdiction to search your vehicle….. no PC, no warrant…

Is that what you're saying? Ever heard of fruit from the poisonous tree.

Again don't be an idiot and understand plain view doctrine.

 

[lucusloc]

You assume that on any traffic stop LE has the lawful jurisdiction to search your vehicle….. no PC, no warrant…

Is that what you're saying? Ever heard of fruit from the poisonous tree.

Again don't be an idiot and understand plain view doctrine.

That is exactly what I am talking about, stuff in plain view granting probable cause for further searches. This has been pretty firmly established as not violating anyone's rights when applied to something like civil asset forfeiture, for example.

I am not sure we want to start advocating for treating all firearms paraphernalia as something that needs to be hidden to prevent an over-enthusiastic officer from invoking "probable cause" to look for magazines. The way these various laws and prior precedent work certainly looks like that will be an acceptable chain of events to a court.

Should it be that way? Absolutely not, but while we are off in fantasy land we might as well wish 114 did not exist at all.

Now it is certainly possible the courts will see that line of reasoning and balk at the gross violation of privacy that it is, but I am not willing to bet that is the direction they will take. The first guy to got to trial on this issue will probably be screwed unless we get relief from federal courts over the law itself.

 

[Ura-Ki]

That is exactly what I am talking about, stuff in plain view granting probable cause for further searches. This has been pretty firmly established as not violating anyone's rights when applied to something like civil asset forfeiture, for example.

I am not sure we want to start advocating for treating all firearms paraphernalia as something that needs to be hidden to prevent an over-enthusiastic officer from invoking "probable cause" to look for magazines. The way these various laws and prior precedent work certainly looks like that will be an acceptable chain of events to a court.

Should it be that way? Absolutely not, but while we are off in fantasy land we might as well wish 114 did not exist at all.

Now it is certainly possible the courts will see that line of reasoning and balk at the gross violation of privacy that it is, but I am not willing to bet that is the direction they will take. The first guy to got to trial on this issue will probably be screwed unless we get relief from federal courts over the law itself.

Something to keep in mind here, and especially in Oregon!
Fact: OSP often uses "Just Cause" as an excuse to search your car, and they get away with it every time by using one simple trick, " I think I smell Marijuana" they do this all the time, doesn't matter if they see something, or smell something, or just fishing, they are famous for using this as a probable cause and they have never been challenged on it!

 

[lucusloc]

Something to keep in mind here, and especially in Oregon!
Fact: OSP often uses "Just Cause" as an excuse to search your car, and they get away with it every time by using one simple trick, " I think I smell Marijuana" they do this all the time, doesn't matter if they see something, or smell something, or just fishing, they are famous for using this as a probable cause and they have never been challenged on it!

Yeah, the courts have been allowing all kinds of abuses like this. It only takes one bad case and suddenly this is the new normal. It will take a herculean effort to overturn. But the main point is just sue them if they violate your rights" is not really going to cut it if the courts don't actually see it as a violation.

 

[1775usmc]

That is exactly what I am talking about, stuff in plain view granting probable cause for further searches. This has been pretty firmly established as not violating anyone's rights when applied to something like civil asset forfeiture, for example.

I am not sure we want to start advocating for treating all firearms paraphernalia as something that needs to be hidden to prevent an over-enthusiastic officer from invoking "probable cause" to look for magazines. The way these various laws and prior precedent work certainly looks like that will be an acceptable chain of events to a court.

Should it be that way? Absolutely not, but while we are off in fantasy land we might as well wish 114 did not exist at all.

Now it is certainly possible the courts will see that line of reasoning and balk at the gross violation of privacy that it is, but I am not willing to bet that is the direction they will take. The first guy to got to trial on this issue will probably be screwed unless we get relief from federal courts over the law itself.

Yea plain view doctrine. There is case law for that….

 

[1775usmc]

Something to keep in mind here, and especially in Oregon!
Fact: OSP often uses "Just Cause" as an excuse to search your car, and they get away with it every time by using one simple trick, " I think I smell Marijuana" they do this all the time, doesn't matter if they see something, or smell something, or just fishing, they are famous for using this as a probable cause and they have never been challenged on it!

In Oregon weed is legal. So….. how does that work? If they are trying to get you for driving impaired they have to conduct FSTs.

 

[CamoDeafie]

In Oregon weed is legal. So….. how does that work? If they are trying to get you for driving impaired they have to conduct FSTs.

So is alcohol but that don't stop dirty cops from claiming "I see an open beverage" or " I smell alcohol" and searching the vehicle in addition to FSTs

 

[1775usmc]

So is alcohol but that don't stop dirty cops from claiming "I see an open beverage" or " I smell alcohol" and searching the vehicle in addition to FSTs

You do know they have to provide evidence…. Like the open container they claimed to have seen.

There is a process for all of this.

 

[lucusloc]

Yea plain view doctrine. There is case law for that….

Yes, and as noted that case law does not work out in our favor for many of these situations.

 

[CamoDeafie]

You do know they have to provide evidence…. Like the open container they claimed to have seen.

There is a process for all of this.

And I'm saying there are dirty cops.

 

[1775usmc]

Yes, and as noted that case law does not work out in our favor for many of these situations.

Dude I couldn't care less. lol. Fear. Fear. Fear.

Don't be an idiot and you'll be fine. It's work for 30+ years of my life.

I start the day committing a misdemeanor.

 

[1775usmc]

And I'm saying there are dirty cops.

Ok.

 

[lucusloc]

Dude I couldn't care less. lol. Fear. Fear. Fear.

Don't be an idiot and you'll be fine. It's work for 30+ years of my life.

I start the day committing a misdemeanor.

Yeah, and I bet people never thought they would be getting arrested in the UK over free speech issues, yet there they are. These things collapse on you incrementally. Just like restrictions on our ability to purchase regular magazines is on the cusp of becoming reality, when it did not used to be that way. It isn't fearmongering to point out the slippery slope when we are busy skiing down it right now. Our rights to access and own certain firearms parts are being infringed. Why do you think some other right isn't on the chopping block as well, especially when that specific right already has a mountain of infringements condoned by the courts?

 

[1775usmc]

Yeah, and I bet people never thought they would be getting arrested in the UK over free speech issues, yet there they are. These things collapse on you incrementally. Just like restrictions on our ability to purchase regular magazines is on the cusp of becoming reality, when it did not used to be that way. It isn't fearmongering to point out the slippery slope when we are busy skiing down it right now. Our rights to access and own certain firearms parts are being infringed. Why do you think some other right isn't on the chopping block as well, especially when that specific right already has a mountain of infringements condoned by the courts?

We aren't European/UK.

This is AMERICA.

 

[lucusloc]

We aren't European/UK.

This is AMERICA.

And you think we aren't suffering the same form of cultural and legal decay here?

 

[1775usmc]

And you think we aren't suffering the same form of cultural and legal decay here?

No. Cause when push comes to shove we will go to war here.

 

[lucusloc]

No. Cause when push comes to shove we will go to war here.

We have to get to the point where enough people are willing to go to war first. Or are you saying we should kick this thing of in 1934?

 

[1775usmc]

We have to get to the point where enough people are willing to go to war first. Or are you saying we should kick this thing of in 1934?

That whole blade of grass and fat people thing you were defending. Or is that only for foreign governments/countries?

 

[1775usmc]

I think I'm reverting back to my original position. If mag bans and 114 goes into effect I won't be changing a damn thing.