Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:23 pm
by KRM45
srothstein wrote:
And, KRM45, I have to agree with you on one thing. I am not a lawyer and my advice is not legal advice, just a friendly discussion.
I am happy to participate in the discussion. As I am just starting out in this field I will take all advice I can get and save it for when I am faced with a future situation.
Interestingly our instructor for Arrest, Search & Siezure class told us about a time when he arrested a guy that pulled into a gas station under similar circumstances. The issue was not that he carried the weapon into the store, he simply had it in his car. The instructor said the DA would not prosecute the case, but the gentleman still spent the night in a cell. Of course this was before the recent clarification on Traveling.
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:57 pm
by txinvestigator
KRM45 wrote:srothstein wrote:
And, KRM45, I have to agree with you on one thing. I am not a lawyer and my advice is not legal advice, just a friendly discussion.
I am happy to participate in the discussion. As I am just starting out in this field I will take all advice I can get and save it for when I am faced with a future situation.
Interestingly our instructor for Arrest, Search & Siezure class told us about a time when he arrested a guy that pulled into a gas station under similar circumstances. The issue was not that he carried the weapon into the store, he simply had it in his car. The instructor said the DA would not prosecute the case, but the gentleman still spent the night in a cell. Of course this was before the recent clarification on Traveling.
Two things;
If the man only was carrying the gun around and not actually traveling (whatever that used to mean
) then he WAS in violation for carrying there. And he must have really done something to get the attention of the LEO for him to have found the gun there.
Second, if the officer made the arrest KNOWING that the charge was not good, then he KNEW it was an invalid arrest. That is officious at best, and possibly criminal.
One more thing, the new presumption is not a "clarification" of traveling. It is an additional presumption. One can still be traveling if they don't meet the 5 requirements.
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:45 pm
by KRM45
txinvestigator wrote:
Second, if the officer made the arrest KNOWING that the charge was not good, then he KNEW it was an invalid arrest. That is officious at best, and possibly criminal.
I hope I didn't give the impression that this officer new, or even thought, that he was making a bad arrest. He thought it was a valid charge, and the prosecuter made the decision not to pursue it.