Raid on home in AL over facebook video featuring guns

115-124-147 · Dec 8, 2016

Here is the story:

Washington Post: 22 heavily armed men post mannequin challenge on Facebook, much to delight of cops

So, some people posted a video of themselves posing with guns, on a property that presumably belonged to at least one of them, and the police were able to get a search warrant, conducted a raid with ATF and SWAT, breeched the door with a battering ram, and have (so far) arrested two of the men in the video.

The article - like several others I've read about this story - is vague about what search warrant was based on. (The article is explicit regarding what the two arrests were based on, but not the search warrant).

It says that Kenneth Fennell White was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

I doubt anyone here is an expert in Alabama state law, but would that also have to have been the grounds for the search warrant? In order to get the search warrant, would they have to establish that Kenneth Fennell White was a felon, and also used that home as his residence? Or just had to establish that he was ON that property while he was a felon in possession of a weapon?

Or is there some entirely other way that this video might have been used to get a search warrant?

I realize no one here probably knows the answer for certain, but maybe someone knows it better than me.

P.S. - what kind of bozo reports to prison with marijuana on his person??!

Tommygunn · Dec 8, 2016

If you are an ex con, you cannot have anything to do with guns. If you post photos on social media with a gun, and you're an excon, then you are handing the authorities evidence on a silver platter that will get you another visit to the Graybar Hotel.

alientrainwreck · Dec 8, 2016

That's what Facebook is good for, this ex con should have known someone would notice him. If any of the other men were recognized and had warrants for their arrest, I believe that may fall into harboring a fugitive from the law. if it was a felony warrant than it could be executed anywhere.

mjsdwash · Dec 8, 2016

seems like with all the highly realistic replica firearms out there it would be pretty easy to fight.

ironworkerwill · Dec 8, 2016

Felons have lost their rights to possess firearms. This is the root of the warrant and the arrest.

There is no maximum number of weapons or specific types of weapons it my great state that would draw a warrant.

Then there is the possibility that the other man enabled a felon to obtain firearms. Which is a felony within itself.

jmr40 · Dec 8, 2016

Cops do this all the time. Stupid people posting crimes on FB and then wonder how they got caught. Seems like a legit arrest to me.

RX-79G · Dec 8, 2016

And it was probably one of their friends or family that passed the FB post on to LE.

I imagine the purpose of the warrant was to confirm that the guns were real, not airsoft.

115-124-147 · Dec 8, 2016

ironworkerwill said:
Felons have lost their rights to possess firearms. This is the root of the warrant and the arrest.

Of course.

It is the details I am wondering about. Let's say that you live with Uncle Joe the ex-con. And he is videotaped merely standing in front of your house holding a firearm (not necessarily his own firearm, could be someone else's, there is no way to tell from a simple video of him standing there with it). Then the police can obtain a warrant to search your house with a SWAT team, battering down your door and throwing in flash-bangs (the police press conference about this case referred to use of "distraction devices)? That is what I am wondering.

RX-79G · Dec 9, 2016

115-124-147 said:
Of course.

It is the details I am wondering about. Let's say that you live with Uncle Joe the ex-con. And he is videotaped merely standing in front of your house holding a firearm (not necessarily his own firearm, could be someone else's, there is no way to tell from a simple video of him standing there with it). Then the police can obtain a warrant to search your house with a SWAT team, battering down your door and throwing in flash-bangs (the police press conference about this case referred to use of "distraction devices)? That is what I am wondering.

The extent of the damage the police do is a separate question, and if do considerable damage going after a non-violent offender, they are probably going to get sued.

But if you live with Uncle Joe, it is Uncle Joe's residence - not just yours. So the (reasonable) damage to your property is Uncle Joe's fault, not the police.

You can bet that many families have been seriously inconvenienced in the past when a house guest or family member got investigated for a crime. And I'm sure many a business lost all of their computers and ability to work for awhile because of the illegal actions of one employee.

Arizona_Mike · Dec 9, 2016

From the article it is clear that there was more evidence needed for a warrant: "police investigated further and eventually got a search warrant for the property". It was probably as case of "Hey aren't these guys felons? Let's check our records."

Mike

alsaqr · Dec 9, 2016

Yep, some MENSA candidates, including at least one convicted felon, made a video and posted same on facebook. So they got raided.

wally · Dec 9, 2016

seems like with all the highly realistic replica firearms out there it would be pretty easy to fight.

Not if the raid authorized by the warrant turned up real guns.

Jeff H · Dec 9, 2016

another idiot gets arrested for posting crap on FB. People should really think things through a little more.

ClickClickD'oh · Dec 9, 2016

mjsdwash said:
seems like with all the highly realistic replica firearms out there it would be pretty easy to fight.

Be very careful with that line of reasoning, because the law of unintended consequences is about to bite you in the Bum. In order for the police to have been granted a warrant, they have to have convinced a judge there is reasonable belief a crime has been committed and there is evidence of such at the location to be searched. The elements of this crime are two fold: 1) The people in the video are felons. 2) They are in possession of firearms.

If you are saying that the warrant can be invalidated because we can't assume the objects seen in the video were in fact firearms because of the existence of "highly realistic replica".

Law of Unintended Consequences: Your right to self defense will be radically altered because right now as it stands, if a person points a gun at you with criminal intent, you may use lethal force to defend yourself. If you are not allowed to assume that the gun like object is in fact a gun, but must consider that it might be a "highly realistic replica", then you can't legally defend yourself until such time as it is proven that it is in fact a functioning firearm.

I'm quite happy with being allowed to assume it is indeed a real gun.

GAF · Dec 9, 2016

More thugs off the street !!! Whats wrong with that?
If stupid was criminal all of the people in that video would be in jail.

X-Rap · Dec 9, 2016

Social media of all kinds should be used with the knowledge that what you place there can be used against you.

tarosean · Dec 9, 2016

115-124-147 said:
It is the details I am wondering about. Let's say that you live with Uncle Joe the ex-con. And he is videotaped merely standing in front of your house holding a firearm (not necessarily his own firearm, could be someone else's, there is no way to tell from a simple video of him standing there with it). Then the police can obtain a warrant to search your house with a SWAT team, battering down your door and throwing in flash-bangs (the police press conference about this case referred to use of "distraction devices)?

Dont matter who's firearm... Joe is in possession and there is proof, so they can go after him.
I would imagine SWAT was used because there were multiple guns & people filmed at the location.

Bullseye · Dec 9, 2016

Disgusting

Carl N. Brown · Dec 9, 2016

Yep, some MENSA candidates ...

More like DENSA candidates

Felon posting on Facebook with gun = stuck on stupid.

Who owns the weapon is not the point under local law. It does depend on jurisdiction, but Illegal weapons possession as a local criminal charge usually means having access, ability and opportunity to use the weapon for offense or defense illegally. A felon may have a roommate or spouse who legally owns a gun under federal law, but if the felon can access the gun to use it as a weapon he can be charged with weapon possession under local laws.

lemaymiami · Dec 9, 2016

And for anyone wondering about the evidence needed to obtain that warrant... most judges I've dealt we're pretty careful to go over it carefully before signing off on it...

herrwalther · Dec 9, 2016

I am not understanding the defense for these felons. Isn't this an example of the gun laws we want enforced? The laws which the left parties ignore when pushing for more gun control? These young folk are not legally allowed to possess firearms. And they thought it would be cool to make a video showing them off. The police merely stumbled across the video and put together a case to check the place out for illegal activity. They succeeded and arrests were carried out. They played a stupid game and won stupid prizes.

In any case I know where this video was recorded. This is an area where you could throw a rock and hit more than a few drug houses and gang territories. No tears from me about a few going behind bars for awhile.

RustHunter87 · Dec 9, 2016

Facebook is literally the worlds largest facial recognition program once you are tagged in a photo it knows who you are...

RX-79G · Dec 9, 2016

ClickClickD'oh said:
Be very careful with that line of reasoning, because the law of unintended consequences is about to bite you in the Bum. In order for the police to have been granted a warrant, they have to have convinced a judge there is reasonable belief a crime has been committed and there is evidence of such at the location to be searched. The elements of this crime are two fold: 1) The people in the video are felons. 2) They are in possession of firearms.

If you are saying that the warrant can be invalidated because we can't assume the objects seen in the video were in fact firearms because of the existence of "highly realistic replica".

Law of Unintended Consequences: Your right to self defense will be radically altered because right now as it stands, if a person points a gun at you with criminal intent, you may use lethal force to defend yourself. If you are not allowed to assume that the gun like object is in fact a gun, but must consider that it might be a "highly realistic replica", then you can't legally defend yourself until such time as it is proven that it is in fact a functioning firearm.

I'm quite happy with being allowed to assume it is indeed a real gun.

I think you're misunderstanding.

The video probably created enough doubt that the felons weren't avoiding firearms to get a warrant. But the video itself is not enough to prosecute, nor is it enough for a "reasonable suspicion" search. Hence, a warrant.

This is no different than getting a warrant on a house with taped over windows and a huge electric bill for suspicion of growing pot. The video or power bill might be entered into evidence, but the arrest and charges come from the results of the search warrant.

mjsdwash · Dec 9, 2016

ClickClickD'oh said:
Be very careful with that line of reasoning, because the law of unintended consequences is about to bite you in the Bum. In order for the police to have been granted a warrant, they have to have convinced a judge there is reasonable belief a crime has been committed and there is evidence of such at the location to be searched. The elements of this crime are two fold: 1) The people in the video are felons. 2) They are in possession of firearms.

If you are saying that the warrant can be invalidated because we can't assume the objects seen in the video were in fact firearms because of the existence of "highly realistic replica".

Law of Unintended Consequences: Your right to self defense will be radically altered because right now as it stands, if a person points a gun at you with criminal intent, you may use lethal force to defend yourself. If you are not allowed to assume that the gun like object is in fact a gun, but must consider that it might be a "highly realistic replica", then you can't legally defend yourself until such time as it is proven that it is in fact a functioning firearm.

I'm quite happy with being allowed to assume it is indeed a real gun.

Im with you one that, my concern is that without "heat of the moment" cant it be argued that police had speculative evidence?

herrwalther · Dec 9, 2016

mjsdwash said:
Im with you one that, my concern is that without "heat of the moment" cant it be argued that police had speculative evidence?

Police like to keep files on suspected crime areas. Especially true in areas or towns with gang activity. They keep records of suspected drug houses, illegal firearms, known felons etc. Building a case as it were. Videos and other evidence like this posted freely online is like having a giant flashing sign telling the police to show up. A friend of mine is on a gang task force for a very large city. He has some of the addresses of doors he would love to kick down memorized or written down. He waits for just enough evidence such as social media like this to get a warrant or give him enough reasonable suspicion to go after some places.

Raid on home in AL over facebook video featuring guns

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads