Permit holder charged with failure to notify Officer [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Permit holder charged with failure to notify Officer


TBO
02-10-2012, 02:07
Second article down:

http://www.cleveland.com/broadview-heights/index.ssf/2012/02/man_arrested_for_carrying_a_co.html

RussP
02-10-2012, 03:25
Well, the sequence of events went something like this:
Made a lane change without signaling.

Noticeable increased speed after lane change.

Clocked at 82 in a 60 MPH zone.

When stopped by police, alcohol on breath.

Did not inform officer of carry permit and firearms in the back seat.

Officer runs info, comes back showing driver has carry permit...

Resulting charges:
Fifth-degree felony transporting weapons while intoxicated,

Fifth-degree felony improper transport of firearms and

Failure to inform an officer

OVI

OVI test refusal

speeding and

not signaling a lane change.oops...

HerrGlock
02-10-2012, 04:09
Well, the sequence of events went something like this:
Made a lane change without signaling.

Noticeable increased speed after lane change.

Clocked at 82 in a 60 MPH zone.

When stopped by police, alcohol on breath.

Did not inform officer of carry permit and firearms in the back seat.

Officer runs info, comes back showing driver has carry permit...

Resulting charges:
Fifth-degree felony transporting weapons while intoxicated,

Fifth-degree felony improper transport of firearms and

Failure to inform an officer

OVI

OVI test refusal

speeding and

not signaling a lane change.oops...

Sounds like someone they should publish his prom picture and say how he was turning his life around :supergrin:

Patchman
02-10-2012, 04:11
Oh. Well.

Dragoon44
02-10-2012, 05:43
So what is his GT screen name?

:whistling::rofl:

walt cowan
02-10-2012, 05:49
So what is his GT screen name?

:whistling::rofl:

can't be gunkid, no permit and still doing time at club fed.:supergrin:

James Dean
02-10-2012, 06:11
I'd say he's got a problem.

cpelliott
02-10-2012, 11:25
His lawyer should be able to get the failure to inform thrown out, because the 2 charges related to the transport clearly indicate that he would be testifying against himself by informing.

That is the crazy thing about failure to inform laws. They can only be used against people who are carrying perfectly legally.

RussP
02-10-2012, 11:43
His lawyer should be able to get the failure to inform thrown out, because the 2 charges related to the transport clearly indicate that he would be testifying against himself by informing.Really? Do you have some case law supporting that?That is the crazy thing about failure to inform laws. They can only be used against people who are carrying perfectly legally.Well, there are other laws to take care of those carrying illegally.

Bill Lumberg
02-10-2012, 11:45
Once they fail to inform, they're no longer legal, in this jurisdiction.

RussP
02-10-2012, 14:23
Once they fail to inform, they're no longer legal, in this jurisdiction.That's what I was thinking.

RichardinNC
02-10-2012, 17:41
[QUOTE=cpelliott;18557805]His lawyer should be able to get the failure to inform thrown out, because the 2 charges related to the transport clearly indicate that he would be testifying against himself by informing.

QUOTE]

Sorry - I read this for the 5th time and still can't understand your reasoning.

You're saying that following the duty to inform requirement would be, in some way, self incriminating?

One more thing: If he is found to be driving impaired do we really want a lawyer to get him off?

cpelliott
02-10-2012, 19:48
Sorry - I read this for the 5th time and still can't understand your reasoning.

You're saying that following the duty to inform requirement would be, in some way, self incriminating?
Are you saying you don't understand how duty to inform are not enforceable when the underlying activity is criminal? Any law that demands reporting or licensing can only be enforced to the extent that they don't require self incrimination.

As an example in Haynes v US, Haynes was charged with failure to register an NFA firearm. Since he was a felon, registering would be an act of self incrimination. SCOTUS agreed 7 to 1. The NFA was later modified to fix this. It's OK to make possession of something illegal. It's not OK to make the failure to report an illegal act a criminal violation.

The 5th amendment issue is why most states don't have duty to inform laws for firearms. It can sink an entire case. Say someone follows the law and self incriminates to follow the law. A search turns up a dead body in the trunk. It could all be fruit of the poisonous tree.

So back to my original point. Duty to inform laws essentially only affect law abiding citizens. People with illegal weapons do get charged, but the conflict with the 5th amendment is pretty easy to prove in court.

AA#5
02-10-2012, 20:38
Teehee. His defense:

"Your Honor, the failure to inform charge should be dropped because I was drunk at the time & we all know what alcohol does to memory."

RussP
02-10-2012, 21:25
Are you saying you don't understand how duty to inform are not enforceable when the underlying activity is criminal? Any law that demands reporting or licensing can only be enforced to the extent that they don't require self incrimination.

As an example in Haynes v US, Haynes was charged with failure to register an NFA firearm. Since he was a felon, registering would be an act of self incrimination. SCOTUS agreed 7 to 1. The NFA was later modified to fix this. It's OK to make possession of something illegal. It's not OK to make the failure to report an illegal act a criminal violation.

The 5th amendment issue is why most states don't have duty to inform laws for firearms. It can sink an entire case. Say someone follows the law and self incriminates to follow the law. A search turns up a dead body in the trunk. It could all be fruit of the poisonous tree.

So back to my original point. Duty to inform laws essentially only affect law abiding citizens. People with illegal weapons do get charged, but the conflict with the 5th amendment is pretty easy to prove in court.So are you advising someone to just not tell law enforcement anything, even if required by law if they want to carry illegally?

cpelliott
02-10-2012, 22:23
So are you advising someone to just not tell law enforcement anything, even if required by law if they want to carry illegally?
I can't seem to find any such advice in the thread. My comments concern the legal issues of failure to inform laws. For some reason I can't figure out, a few people seem to regard the discussion as threatening. From the responses, it is clear that additional comment would not useful.

JuneyBooney
02-10-2012, 22:30
His lawyer should be able to get the failure to inform thrown out, because the 2 charges related to the transport clearly indicate that he would be testifying against himself by informing.

That is the crazy thing about failure to inform laws. They can only be used against people who are carrying perfectly legally.

He will get a lot thrown out and the carrying guns will be pbj or thrown out. A van/suv has no place to lock a gun so you throw them on a seat. But I think they will plea him out to a guilty on the drinking and then some classes. That is a guess. They really treat drunks seriously now. The leo took the "shotgun approach" to the charges. :whistling:

JuneyBooney
02-10-2012, 22:31
Are you saying you don't understand how duty to inform are not enforceable when the underlying activity is criminal? Any law that demands reporting or licensing can only be enforced to the extent that they don't require self incrimination.

As an example in Haynes v US, Haynes was charged with failure to register an NFA firearm. Since he was a felon, registering would be an act of self incrimination. SCOTUS agreed 7 to 1. The NFA was later modified to fix this. It's OK to make possession of something illegal. It's not OK to make the failure to report an illegal act a criminal violation.

The 5th amendment issue is why most states don't have duty to inform laws for firearms. It can sink an entire case. Say someone follows the law and self incriminates to follow the law. A search turns up a dead body in the trunk. It could all be fruit of the poisonous tree.

So back to my original point. Duty to inform laws essentially only affect law abiding citizens. People with illegal weapons do get charged, but the conflict with the 5th amendment is pretty easy to prove in court.

I agree but they use the failure to inform as pc to go "fishing". :whistling:

Ryobi
02-11-2012, 05:19
RS, not PC. And there's nothing wrong with someone breaking the law constituting RS. Break the law, and win prizes.

RussP
02-11-2012, 07:43
Are you saying you don't understand how duty to inform are not enforceable when the underlying activity is criminal? Any law that demands reporting or licensing can only be enforced to the extent that they don't require self incrimination.

As an example in Haynes v US, Haynes was charged with failure to register an NFA firearm. Since he was a felon, registering would be an act of self incrimination. SCOTUS agreed 7 to 1. The NFA was later modified to fix this. It's OK to make possession of something illegal. It's not OK to make the failure to report an illegal act a criminal violation.

The 5th amendment issue is why most states don't have duty to inform laws for firearms. It can sink an entire case. Say someone follows the law and self incriminates to follow the law. A search turns up a dead body in the trunk. It could all be fruit of the poisonous tree.

So back to my original point. Duty to inform laws essentially only affect law abiding citizens. People with illegal weapons do get charged, but the conflict with the 5th amendment is pretty easy to prove in court.So are you advising someone to just not tell law enforcement anything, even if required by law if they want to carry illegally?I can't seem to find any such advice in the thread.I didn't say it is there, therefore I asked the question to clarify. Again, would it be your advice that if one chooses to carry illegally, as in this scenario, one should not make statements that would reveal the illegal carry?My comments concern the legal issues of failure to inform laws.Yes.For some reason I can't figure out, a few people seem to regard the discussion as threatening. From the responses, it is clear that additional comment would not useful.Who exactly do you believe feels threatened by the discussion. We can ask them if they do and why.

Why isn't the 5th amendment issue brought up in must inform states and used to overturn existing or defeat new legislation?

hawgrider
02-11-2012, 13:03
Alcohol and weapons - Not very smart. Even if he gets that thrown out still have a DUI charge to deal with which in my state would most likely loose the right to carry concealed. The guy did wrong accept the responsibility and take it like a man.

RichardinNC
02-12-2012, 07:07
Alcohol and weapons - Not very smart. Even if he gets that thrown out still have a DUI charge to deal with which in my state would most likely loose the right to carry concealed. The guy did wrong except the responsibility and take it like a man.

+1. These days it seems more important to find a way out of something like this than take personal responsibility for your actions.