House-to-house search for firearms?

[jnojr]

Yesterday, a police officer was killed. He'd stopped to assist another officer on a traffic stop, and gunshots came from some nearby area. You can guess what the respone was to that.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20061222-9999-7m22arrest.html

Several guns were recovered during the search, although it was unclear which homes they came from and if they were related to the shooting, Oceanside Police Chief Frank McCoy said.

This sounds an awful lot like police went door-to-door in the area where the shots came from. I'm not sure how they did that... did people just voluntarily turn guns over? Did they grab anyone who was out and about? Did they boot down the doors of any houses that shots might have come from? I just don't see how they could have turned up "several guns" following the law and the Constitution.

This is not a "police bash", and I'd prefer to not see this thread locked for becoming one.

 

[Socrates]

They might have followed the law. Exigent circumstances give the police the right to enter, provided they hold up later.
However, if they followed the current Supreme Court leaning, they called for a telephonic warrant from a judge, and, the judge issued the warrant, allowing the search of the suspected houses, buildings, etc.

I would like to hear the facts on this case, since locating a gun firing, without a muzzle flash, etc. is pretty difficult.
s

 

[shooter503]

Sounds as though SanD lost an exemplary officer.

The reporting, as usual, is dramatic.

The slaying has devastated a department still grieving over the shooting death of another young officer, Tony Zeppetella, three years ago.

Pina, who has been a police officer for eight months, returned fire in the direction of the source of the gunshots.

I hope not.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Sounds like JBT'ism to me.


So what if some thug stands in front of my house and fires on a police officer. They judge from the hole in the car window that it came from the direction of my house, even though it was some thug walking down the sidewalk. In this particular case, the officer just knew of a general direction.


Does that give the police the right to kick down my door, empty out every gun in my safe to take for ballistic fingerprinting or analysis?


No. Not in America. But to some P.D.'s, this America is a very different place. Also, to millions of citizens, that's a totally logical thing to do - which is only a testament to how far they've deviated from reason and from the American way.


If the cops take your guns, for ANY reason - do not expect to see them for a minimum of 6 months. Minimum. That's if you're clean. You know, "paperwork"....You'd be lucky too, usually you have to get a lawyer involved which will cost you a lot of money. It's nice we live in a country where your door gets kicked down by a SWAT team and your firearms are confiscated because some thug shot at a police officer.


This is what it boils down to. Either A cop saw where the shot came from, or they didn't. End of story. You either see it coming from a particular home, or you didn't see it at all. Saying it "came from over there somewhere" is BS. Searching multiple homes as a result is BS.


You can see the Unconstitutional and tyrannical way they let their emotions and their clannish nature take over in place of reason and law. Because an officer was shot, they can just bring in SWAT teams to go door-to-door? Hmmm...why don't they bring in SWAT teams to go door-to-door when Mr. JoeaverageAmerican gets shot? Not that it's right, but I'm questioning their consistency.


I'll take the liberty of invoking Godwin's law and say that these practices were fairly standard in Nazi Germany. Nazis loved group punishment.

 

[Art Eatman]

From the phrasing of the article, it appears they did a "neighborhood search" of interviewing folks in a door-to-door deal. No search as in going into anybody's house.

IOW, SOP. No big deal.

Art

 

[jnojr]

Then where did the "several guns" come from? Especially with no other (reported, at least) arrests?

I'm sure they wanted to talk to everyone they saw, either outside or who answered their door. But I can't see "several" people voluntarily surrendering legally-owned firearms (again, assuming no unreported arrests for weapons charges) because the policce "ask".

I do want to be clear that I'm keeping an open mind... I don't think I know what happened. I just can't picture any Constitutional way that they ended up with multiple guns unless they all came from the suspects.

 

[Erebus]

There has now been two arrests.

OCEANSIDE – A 17-year-old boy has been booked into Juvenile Hall on suspicion of murder in the death of an Oceanside police officer who was shot during a traffic stop Wednesday night, police said.

OCEANSIDE – A 16-year-old boy who had been detained for questioning in the fatal shooting of an Oceanside police officer was arrested Friday.

Police said the 17-year-old boy, who lives in the neighborhood, was one of the people detained during the searches and was arrested after being interviewed by detectives.

Several guns were recovered during the search, although it was unclear which homes they came from and if they were related to the shooting, Oceanside Police Chief Frank McCoy said.

The way this is worded it leads me to believe the reporter has no clue where they came from. They recovered guns but they could have all come from the same house. There is no statement to indicate if the 16 year old is from the neighborhood or not. But if he is that could be 2 places the guns were taken from.

Community leaders expressed grief and rage over the loss yesterday, while also commending Bessant for the strides he had been making curbing gang violence.

I wonder if he was deliberately targeted. The other officer was never fired on and had been at the scene longer. To just randomly fire at a cop conducting a traffic stop seems really out there to me.

Yesterday, administrators visited every classroom specifically to reassure the children they were safe, said Laura Chalkley, a spokeswoman for the Oceanside Unified School District.

Why do they do this when they know it's demonstrably false?

 

[DouglasW]

So, regardless of the details in this story...If police officers, investigating a shooting that just occurred in your immediate area, come to your front door with a 'telephonic warrant' and ask if you have any firearms -- What's the correct response (assuming you aren't involved in the shooting, and the question sounds like generic fishing).

Seems if you answer "yes", they could take them all for the duration of 'the investigation'...even if you demonstrate they're locked up/cold/unloaded/whatever.

If you answer "no", and they find out you lied, couldn't you be charged with obstructing or worse?

I'd be especially curious to hear opinions from LEO or attorneys.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

I've lived in San Diego. Lemme put it this way: Citizens better be subservient if they live anywhere where homes are say less than $1,000,000 or more. I'd be willing to bet the swat team was going door to door with M-16s saying they need to enter and look for guns that might have been used. Which, of course means ANY guns and they'll determine actual criminal use at some time in the future.

Edited to add: I saw the San Diego and thought this was there. Regarding Oceanside, it's even worse than Sandyeggo...

BTW, in California there is a mandated fee paid prior to returning firearms to citizens, if the PD actually returns them. Not only that, a citizen has to go through a DOJ firearm "eligibility" check to see if he or she can actually own the gun(s) the police "took."

# My firearm is in the possession of a court or law enforcement agency. What do I need to do to get it back?

To get your firearm back, you must complete a Law Enforcement Gun Release (LEGR) Application PDF logo [PDF 297 kb / 2 pg] and send the application along with the appropriate processing fee to the Department of Justice. The processing fee for a Law Enforcement Gun Release Application is $20.00 for the first firearm (long gun or handgun), and $3.00 for each additional handgun listed on the application.

If the court or agency in possession of your firearm determines that the firearm was reported stolen, the fee for the stolen firearms(s) will be waived. You must send documentation from the court or agency confirming that the firearm was reported stolen along with the Law Enforcement Gun Release Application to quality for the fee waiver.

Once DOJ receives your Law Enforcement Gun Release Application, a firearms eligibility check will be conducted to determine if you are lawfully eligible to possess firearms. You will receive a notice of the results. If this notice states that you are eligible to possess firearms, you then take the notice to the court or agency in possession of your firearm to claim it. The notice must be presented to the court or agency within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice. Failure to do so will result in the need to submit a new application and fees to undergo another firearms eligibility check.

Typical DOJ processing time for a Law Enforcement Gun Release Application is four to six weeks.

Submission requirements and processing fees are available on the Law Enforcement Gun Release Application. PDF logo [PDF 297 kb / 2 pg]

 

[jnojr]

So, regardless of the details in this story...If police officers, investigating a shooting that just occurred in your immediate area, come to your front door with a 'telephonic warrant' and ask if you have any firearms -- What's the correct response (assuming you aren't involved in the shooting, and the question sounds like generic fishing).

Seems if you answer "yes", they could take them all for the duration of 'the investigation'...even if you demonstrate they're locked up/cold/unloaded/whatever.

If you answer "no", and they find out you lied, couldn't you be charged with obstructing or worse?

This is California. We don't have the option of saying "No". Every gun legally transfered in this state sincce '92 is on their list. All handguns transferred after '92 are registered. They already know what guns we have.

And I seriously doubt there was any warrant, telephonic or otherwise... a brother officer is down, and they came in from all over the county. I'll bet that neighborhood was turned upside down and shaken to see what would come out. It's my understanding that leads were generated in field interviews that resulted in PC to grab these two yo-yos.

 

[jnojr]

I've lived in San Diego. Lemme put it this way: Citizens better be subservient if they live anywhere where homes are say less than $1,000,000 or more. I'd be willing to bet the swat team was going door to door with M-16s saying they need to enter and look for guns that might have been used. Which, of course means ANY guns and they'll determine actual criminal use at some time in the future.

That's what I'm afraid of, but there is no indication at this point that that's actually what occurred.

And a house that costs $1,000,000 in San Diego just means it has all four walls, a roof, and isn't in the barrio. Well, that's a little bit of an exaggeration, but not a whole lot

Edited to add: I saw the San Diego and thought this was there. Regarding Oceanside, it's even worse than Sandyeggo...

Yes it is... lots of gangs. Houses are probably only around $700,000 though

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

y'all are funny

the lack of real info about what happened is stellar yet its does allow for a ton of what is at best speculation. at worst we would call the speculation a nasty word.but i do understand having facts is such a stifling thing curbs the imagination.
can anyone substantiate(factually as opposed to from the voices in their head)the "door to door search". i lived in some hairy areas and have never seen a door to door search. have any of you? in real life i mean as opposed to your fevered dreams

 

[pcosmar]

cassandrasdaddy
"y'all are funny"
I think this is what concerns people here.
"SWAT teams from Oceanside and Carlsbad searched the neighborhood door-to-door and detained several potential witnesses. "

"Several guns were recovered during the search, although it was unclear which homes they came from and if they were related to the shooting, Oceanside Police Chief Frank McCoy said."

It is sad that this Officer was killed, it seems that he was one of the best examples of a Peace Officer. He was trying to do some good in the neighborhood.

 

[El Tejon]

Douglas, remember the Grateful Dead song, "if you got a warrant you might as well come on in."

If po-po knock on the door, which I do not open and yell can we come in and look for guns? I yell back "no, have a nice day."

If they have a "search warrant", I let them in, get their names and take all the photos I can. I then have MUCH fun in court.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

still looking

for any real proof they went in folks houses and did a door to door search for guns. my old adress was in the 1300 block of q street nw in dc and i've actually seen een a part of some door to door searches(as opposed to reading about em and then fantasizing about what coulda happened) and my reallity was significantly different to the fantasies "exposed" here.
maybe i'm just too pragmatic in that i think if someone shoots at the cops(or anyone else for that matter)its reasonable for them to look for catch and arrest the guys who did it? in the more enlightened world that some of you have planned what would you have the cops do?stand outside and ask the shooter to come out and dialogue?
i wait to be enlightened

 

[geekWithA.45]

Insufficient data here to comment on tyranny potential.

Lesson to take from it regardless:

Offsite spares.

 

[thexrayboy]

from the article

About 15 minutes into the stop, Bessant was hit by gunfire that came “from some distance away” on Arthur Avenue, Heering said. Pina, who has been a police officer for eight months, returned fire in the direction of the source of the gunshots.

A general direction of fire frome some distance away would seem to make practically impossible to tell where to search. And the statement of the officer returning fire in the direction of the gunshots is negligent at best, more likely criminal. Since when was shooting at a noise off in the distance a
tactic being taught to LEO. Its a wonder an innocent civilian wasn't killed, but then again it's ok if it was
done to defend an officer.

SWAT teams from Oceanside and Carlsbad searched the neighborhood door-to-door and detained several potential witnesses. Police said the 17-year-old boy, who lives in the neighborhood, was one of the people detained during the searches and was arrested after being interviewed by detectives.

Since they didn't know where the shots came from they simply chose to violate the rights of everyone in the general vicinity. Warrants are legal only when based on specific information. By default the need to search lots of houses shows they had no specific information and thus no basis for warrants or searchesof homes.

Several guns were recovered during the search, although it was unclear which homes they came from and if they were related to the shooting, Oceanside Police Chief Frank McCoy said.

I don't even have to comment on the illegality of these seizures. They may stand up in some liberal communistic California Kangaroo court but these seizures were not legal, moral or justified.

This whole episode is a classic example of overreaction by law enforcement.
Sad though the death of an officer is they are no more special than anyone else. The police won't go to this much effort to find the shooter in the death of a random jogger and they should not be allowed to violate the Constitution so blatantly simply because the victim had a badge.

The death of freedom has never been more apparent.

 

[hmp32]

I wonder how many regular citizens have died in San Degio county since 1850 because they couldn't defend themselves? I suspect more than 78.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

could you

be more specific in regards the violatons of the constitution that occured? my computer isn't giving me all those extra lines of info that are enabling you to make that assesment.

 

[thexrayboy]

Going door to door and confiscating weapons without a warrant specifically describing the weapon and the facts that are known to support that confiscation is a violation of the Constitution. Just because some liberal Kangaroo court refuses to slap down these departments for this conduct makes it no less a violation of the Constitution.

The rules defining what constitutes what is needed to issue a warrant were laid out decades ago. The requirement for having a warrant is also specific.
Unless real and proximate probable cause exists than a search without a proper warrant is not legal. If they had enough facts to justify a warrant or the search of a house they would not have needed to go "door to door". That act reduced their efforts to an armed fishing expedition in the hopes of getting lucky. I stand by my statement. The conduct of the police in Oceanside in this incident may stand up in court but it was unconstitutional. The fact that it may not be overturned merely speaks to the corruption or our courts.

 

[Autolycus]

Cassandras Daddy the cops have no clue except a direction where the fire came from. So they search and detain everyone. Then they take all the guns they find instead of getting the murder weapon.

After that you have to pay $20.00 for your gun back ($3.00 for each additional one after the first) and go through a BG check. Thats what I have gathered so far.

How does this not violate my rights?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

but did they?

in reallity how many guns did they grab in this "door to door search" in the reallity i exist in the cops go door to door ask questions grab folks who scoot. it would appear that some folks here believe this event went way past that and thus far the article i see on this creen doesn't support that version of reallity.hey maybe some of the posters were visiting in the neighborhood and have more info than the article but if that articles all they are using they might be reaching a bit one might even think they need to go up a guage or 2 in the foil hat

 

[thexrayboy]

Read the constitution. Going door to door and asking questions will not result in multiple firearms being taken by the police. Going door to door and asking questions and then searching houses based on those questions is what happend. Read the constitution, don't just parrot liberal prose.

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

"Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized". No reasonable reading of that Amendment grants the police the right to go door to door searching for evidence.

The need to go to multiple houses more than adequately proves that they lacked the necessary facts to get a proper and constitutional warrant. If they had actual facts and evidence to justify their actions it is incumbent upon them to provide those facts prior to getting a warrant. The theory that they need to act fast to prevent the potential loss of evidence is smoke and mirrors. I see no phrase in the 4th Amendment that gives them any wiggle room. Most of the gun laws on the books in this country are enforced by the police. That does not make them constitutional. This is the exact same thing. It may or may not have been legal, I think not, but by no definition was it legal.

These statements are based upon the article as written, if in fact what was published is what actually ocurred then the 4th Amendment was violated in the case.

 

[Robert Hairless]

The concept behind a "Law Enforcement Gun Release Application" in California is, I think, brilliant but certainly not new except for the idea of requiring that the applicant put it in writing and charging a nominal sum.

Thieves who steal art usually do so for the purpose of having the owner's insurance company submit an "Art Release Application" in the form of much more money. Hauptmann had the Lindberghs do a "Child Release Application" for a significant sum of money at that time: $70,000 if memory serves. In situations where private citizens take what doesn't belong to them and charge for its return, they are criminals and they're the ones who initiate the process in writing.

I'm not objecting to the police doing it, of course. In fact it's a good idea for the police to be able to take people's property and charge them for its return. That approach could help control taxes. What California needs to do, though, is broaden its program significantly so the police generate big money. Expensive cars, for example, could be seized and the owners could be required to do a "Law Enforcement Vehicle Release Application" accompanied by a fee of a couple of thousand dollars. And there's no reason why the cops couldn't go to the schools, pick up some middle class kids, and require their parents to do a "Law Enforcement Child Release Application" with an even greater fee. In fact what they might do is sell the cars and the kids to the highest bidders. It all would be perfectly legal, of course, because it would be perfectly legal of course.

And it might even turn out--if California's law enforcement agencies get into high gear--that their cash flow becomes large enough so that there's no need to pay their cops a salary. Put them on a straight commission basis and give each cop a percentage of what people pay for the return of their property.

Other states might want to follow California's lead. It's the birthplace of good ideas. But private citizens need to realize that they're not supposed to do such things because it's not legal for them to take things that don't belong to them and charge for their return. That would compete with the monopoly currently owned by California's law enforcement. They have a tough job to do and we're lucky to have them. If you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about. Don't worry. Be happy.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i just read

the article again and you manage to extrapolate a lot more from it than i did. i'll be kind and describe it as reaching. could you show me what parts of the article you used to come to your "conclusions"?
About 15 minutes into the stop, Bessant was hit by gunfire that came “from some distance away” on Arthur Avenue, Heering said. Pina, who has been a police officer for eight months, returned fire in the direction of the source of the gunshots.

Bessant died at Scripps Memorial Hospital-La Jolla.

SWAT teams from Oceanside and Carlsbad searched the neighborhood door-to-door and detained several potential witnesses. Police said the 17-year-old boy, who lives in the neighborhood, was one of the people detained during the searches and was arrested after being interviewed by detectives.

The District Attorney's Office has not filed charges yet in the case.

A second boy was also detained for questioning yesterday morning. Authorities would not release any additional information about the boys because they are juveniles.

Several guns were recovered during the search, although it was unclear which homes they came from and if they were related to the shooting, Oceanside Police Chief Frank McCoy said.

in case they move it