[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by DustyJacket

Well? Was it concealed? Or was it next to you?

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

It was both

Sorry but I am still curious as to the status of the gun. I am guessing perhaps concealed in a case and the case was next to you. But that is a guess.

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

....
As to finding a roach, it ties into illegal search and seizure in a scenario.
If you were a cop and this happened to your bud, what would you advise?

I would tell him not to use marijuana or at least when he isn't high clean all the residue and remains out of is car.

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

I amazed at all the posts from cops on the legality of items depicted. I didn't realize you guys also got law degrees. I always assumed you were just evidence gathers.
Any real,bar lawyer want to chime in. Or do they prefer a different kind of weapon than this forum?

Search and seizure can be fairly tricky. Sometimes appeals courts disagree with decision by judges in lower courts. Other times it can be fairly straight forward and some/many officers have a fair amount of experience in determining what evidence will be allowed or probably will be allowed. Out of curiosity has the search been declared illegal by a court or by your attorney?

[RussP]

Unanswered questions and inquiries:

Originally Posted by SgtScott31

"Experimental no cause" checkpoints? Feel free to provide a source to that claim as well (i.e. news story, court opinion).

Originally Posted by Bruce M

What kind of "black marks?"

Originally Posted by md2lgyk

Were any field sobriety tests performed? Where I worked as an LEO, that was always the first step. Or a breathalyzer (but we didn't all have one).

Originally Posted by IGotIt

Back to the topic; OP what is an "experimental no cause check point?

Originally Posted by jbailey8

I'm curious about the outcome of the criminal charges(DUI, Possession of a firearm while intoxicated)? Were you found guilty? Innocent? Not charged?

Originally Posted by RussP

After a sleepless night tending to your child, you worked a long day. You and a buddy go out to get something to eat and a couple of drinks, on with your meal, one just before leaving. You are tired and relaxed after the meal and drinks.

A couple miles from the restaurant, not paying attention to your speed, you are stopped for speeding. The Milwaukee PD officer notices alcohol on your breath. He asks if you have any firearms. You say yes. He asks if it is loaded. You respond in some manner that it is.

The officer now has someone he believes is impaired by alcohol in possession of a firearm.

He, and perhaps a second officer by now, remove you from the car, handcuff you, remove your firearm and place you in the backseat of a police car.

They then commence a search incident to your arrest.

After some period of time they take you in and blood is drawn. That reveals you have a BAC of .012. How long after being stop did they draw blood?

Is that pretty close to what happened so far?

You say, "...only .012, well under .08." A couple of drinks may not affect you under normal circumstances. However, you had little sleep the night before and had a long workday. Your body's alcohol tolerance was probably lower than it would be were you rested.

Did the arresting officer describe your appearance when he stopped you in his report? Your face may have reflected that lack of sleep/couple of drinks combination. Did they process you, take your picture? That would be interesting to see.

Now, it is also interesting that you threw in the, "...find a roach your kid's friend dropped the night before when your kid had the car." Is that a fact in your story, or did you just throw that in to spice things up?

You said, "...my stuff was "stolen" from my possession..." Was it returned to you when you were released?

Were you even charged with anything other than speeding?

There are other conclusions that may be drawn from your posts, but that can wait.

Looking forward to your response.

Originally Posted by RussP

He was a witness, not an actor.

Is that correct, bucksnort?

Originally Posted by DustyJacket

Well? Was it concealed? Or was it next to you?

Let me rephrase the question: Were you carrying the firearm in a holster on your person?

How about we start with those unanswered items... To go back and view the posts in context, click on the small blue box following the poster's name.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Throughout this thread (even starting with the title)...

Not his title... I created the title from the words in his original post when I moved it to its own thread.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

Good for you. I'm sure you're in the percentage that is made out for a peace officer. Then there's the % that slide along.

How would you quantify those percentages?

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by RussP

Not his title... I created the title from the words in his original post when I moved it to its own thread.

Got it...so even starting with his original post....my point is still valid, IMO

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[RussP]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

ok
Interpret this

At what point as an agent of the state, would you determine an individual to be in violation?

The part of your post I put into the box that you identify as jury instructions, is the the totality of the instructions?

You want an interpretation. It isn't the jurors' job to interpret the law. Their job is to weigh the facts of the case as presented against the law. If those facts do not support penalizing the defendant, defendant goes home acquitted. We do not have all the facts. We have your interpretation of the facts.

To answer to your question, "At what point ... would you determine an individual to be in violation?", a law enforcement officer would require more information which you have not provided, even though asked to provide.

In his report, how did the officer describe your demeanor, physical characteristics, speech, eyes, movement? Were you argumentative? What did you say to the officer(s)?

The answer is, I guess, at the point you convinced them by actions, words, appearance, you were suspected, suspected of being in violation.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Got it...so even starting with his original post....my point is still valid, IMO

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Absolutely!!!

[RussP]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

and as to whether you've ever consumed 4 hours before operating.

What are you asking?

Are you implying it was 4 hours between when you had the last drink and when you were stopped?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

Guess you didn't see that the events as depicted weren't applicable completely in my case. Not sure if it was a slip in comprehension as other posters have admitted.

Yes, I saw your "disclaimer."

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

It was in a response to some guy in Beer City to imagine a possible scenario he might be familiar with...

What in your response to him is a true fact of your arrest?

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

As to finding a roach, it ties into illegal search and seizure in a scenario.

So that fact in your comment is totally fictitious?

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

If you were a cop and this happened to your bud, what would you advise?

Tell us the absolute truth of the event with supporting police reports and dash cam video, you know, "the rest of the story", and I'll tell you know what I would say.

[golls17]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

just warming up. Kicking back and popped a brew. I have to work during the day to support the rest of you slackers

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

After 1 beer I think I've reached my limit and going to bed so I can do it all over tomorrow

I bet that officer agrees!

Originally Posted by RussP

Bruce, that was an, "I pay youse coppers' salaries," comment...only said with a Wisconsin accent.

Hey! What accent?!

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

It was both

True, in WI even open carrying, once in a vehicle, is defined as concealed. This is why before we had CCW, you couldn't carry in a vehicle. Had to unload and store the firearm.

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

Did you also get a law degree or did you just do the 60 credit thing to get in?

2 different things. 60 credits at an accredited college to be a cop, not a lawyer. Don't need a law degree to be a cop, either.

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

ok
Interpret this

However, it is a class A misdemeanor (punishable by 9 months jail and/or $10,000 fine) for anyone to go armed with a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant. . “Under the Influence‖ has been defined as materially impairing the ability to handle a firearm which is further explained as consuming ―an amount of alcohol to cause the person to be less able to exercise clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a firearm.‖

At what point as an agent of the state, would you determine an individual to be in violation?

Hilljack?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=HillJack
Not here. sorry of where you live that you have to deal with peeps like that.
I was in Cinncy once, Tucky on 75 in Sept. of this year. Have no real need to revisit the area.

"Under the influence" doesn't mean .08 it means each individual's ability to maintain clear judgement. For some, that could be .01 (if 1 beer is your limit as you stated earlier, this could be the case). Also, "1 beer" is vague. Was it a 12oz? One of those 20oz cans (or whatever they are)? A 40? All can be construed as "one beer" since it's one container, but obviously there's a difference.

Originally Posted by Bruce M

Sorry but I am still curious as to the status of the gun. I am guessing perhaps concealed in a case and the case was next to you. But that is a guess.

In WI, a firearm in a vehicle is considered concealed, whether it's in plain sight or not.


OP, I'm in SE WI. I must have missed whether you said this was in Milwaukee vs. Waukesha (saw both mentioned). What was the agency?

ETA: OP never said where this happened. I'm curious as to where.

[golls17]

Originally Posted by RussP

bucksnort is in WI.

Actually, unless I'm missing something, I don't think he ever said he was. He was just referring to another poster.

ETA: He never said he was, but said that WISHOOTER is and went into his "hypothetical". Couple that with quoting WI Statutes and knowing that a firearm on the seat is concealed, WI is likely.

OR

We have another one playing word games and mind tricks...


OP - Where did this happen?

[golls17]

For the sake of argument, if he's really from WI

941.20 (1) (a),(1) (b)

941.20  Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon. (1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant; or
...

Again, "intoxicated" doesn't mean .08, it means each individual's ability to act with clear judgement. It's different from person to person, and there are a lot of variables.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

stopped for speeding. had one beer right after work. Cop claimed I was drunk. Blood came back .012
Falsely arrested without probable cause, illegal search of my vehicle, confiscation and denial of my 2nd amendment rights.
Cop was so hyped that I had a loaded gun next to me he never made it back to his cruiser to even check my license. The dash board cam shows a confused, insecure cop back pedaling from my truck, stopping at the back and coming back. The video is hilarious and will hang him and his sidekick that showed up.
The verbal on the vid as they illegally went through my truck is even funnier. I smoke cigars and the one cop commented to the other it' smells like weed in here. the gung ho cop is recorded telling his sidekick how he was going to justify stealing my gun.
I love that cops have vid rolling to show how inept they are. I now have my own dashboard cam to record these clowns.
2 days later they setup experimental no cause check points with money they got from the Feds. These are illegal in my state.

First, there have been cops arrested for that same level of blood alcohol...

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/200...NEWS/904249997

Second, most users of cigars are emptying out the cigars and placing weed in the cigars so they will probably have an expert there to say you had weed and marijuana in the system. Did they pluck a hair from your head?

From what you have described and without the video I don't believe you will win at all. Have you had the case adjudicated yet in your favor? I would work to gt your record clean and expunge or the permit may be gone. If you have a substance abuse problem get it fixed or they may send the feds to ask about gun purchases and lies on the 4473 which is much worse than what you described.

Good luck and the best in this fight.

PS. If you have a drug dog leo friend have him get in your truck and see if the dog "alerts". That would be interesting.

[rockapede]

I love how bucky is jumping down everyone's collective throat for not having all the facts when most of our responses have been based on the information he chose to provide to support his "case".

I'll say again, good luck with your civil suit, should it actually exist.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by SgtScott31

The probable cause standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the officer reasonably believed that you were impaired and conducted the arrest in good faith, it wasn't a "false" or "illegal" arrest. An officer can search your vehicle incident to that arrest. So it's not an illegal search either. As far as the 2nd Amendment issue, I'm not sure about your firearm laws, but in my state we have a charge for possession of a firearm while intoxicated. So I assume that if you were arrested for DUI it would be somewhere in that arena.

Even if you were exonerated from the charges and/or they were dismissed, it doesn't show at all that there was a constitutional violation. In layman's terms you would have to show that the officer(s) involved acted with recklessness/malice involving the arrest. Every situation is very fact based, but I can tell you that the standard to prove this claim is VERY high. I would be very glad to read the court's opinion involving this arrest and any legal actions you take. I have access to Westlaw & Lexis so I can pull unpublished opinions if you care to provide case name or parties to the case.



"Experimental no cause" checkpoints? Feel free to provide a source to that claim as well (i.e. news story, court opinion).

I agree and the pc will be the stop followed by the drinking charge. I would love to see the video.

[golls17]

Originally Posted by JuneyBooney

Second, most users of cigars are emptying out the cigars and placing weed in the cigars so they will probably have an expert there to say you had weed and marijuana in the system. Did they pluck a hair from your head?

I wouldn't say "most", but yeah, it happens. I love me a good cigar, and I've never done that.

It's not unheard of for people to call the cops to a park because they think a group of kids is smoking weed because "it doesn't smell like regular cigarette smoke" and they can't tell the difference. Lots of times, it's just cigarillos.

[rockapede]

Another thought to add: in my state, I can arrest even for simple traffic violations, such as speeding. In other words, I still have PC to arrest even if I later lose my DWI case because the judge thinks PC in a DWI should really be beyond a reasonable doubt.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by John Rambo

Down here we can be ****faced drunk and carry a gun. Hell, I do it all the time! Freedom tastes good, my friend. Tastes like whiskey.

The correct response when asked if the gun is loaded is to say you have your bullet in your pocket and your booze in your holster.

[golls17]

Originally Posted by SgtScott31

The probable cause standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the officer reasonably believed that you were impaired and conducted the arrest in good faith, it wasn't a "false" or "illegal" arrest. An officer can search your vehicle incident to that arrest. So it's not an illegal search either. As far as the 2nd Amendment issue, I'm not sure about your firearm laws, but in my state we have a charge for possession of a firearm while intoxicated. So I assume that if you were arrested for DUI it would be somewhere in that arena.

Depending on where, this gets kind of hairy. Depends on the DA's recommendations around here.

I was in a jurisdiction that borders the next county. Cops from the other county stopped and arrested an OWI just inside our jurisdiction. We pulled up behind and backed him up until his backup officer showed up. After they hauled the driver off, we stayed and BSed with the backup cop, and were amazed at the differences in how vehicle searches had to be done incident to OWI arrest.

"Experimental no cause" checkpoints? Feel free to provide a source to that claim as well (i.e. news story, court opinion).

Again, assuming WI, he's probably referring to one of these...

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/80464437.html

It's not a "checkpoint". It's a big sign on the side of the freeway warning drivers that there is extra patrol looking for intoxicated drivers in that area.


http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2011/a...onwide-effort/

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by faawrenchbndr

Very BAD idea to be discussing this "legal" matter here!
Do yourself a favor & let the lawyers handle this, keep your
comments off the WWW, the defense team WILL find this.

\

This is not "social media" so I see no problem. You are giving people too much credit.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

just warming up. Kicking back and popped a brew. I have to work during the day to support the rest of you slackers

Originally Posted by RussP

Bruce, that was an, "I pay youse coppers' salaries," comment...only said with a Wisconsin accent.

Fair enough then - A heads up for budgeting purposes especially it being the holidays and all. Despite slacking I have somehow managed to accumulate a bit shy of 1600 hours of sick leave that has been payable to me at 100% since about 2007 per contract and I am going to cash it in. Maybe soon. Might want to be very conservative for the Holidays as I would not want you to be short...

[RussP]

Originally Posted by golls17

Actually, unless I'm missing something, I don't think he ever said he was. He was just referring to another poster.

ETA: He never said he was, but said that WISHOOTER is and went into his "hypothetical". Couple that with quoting WI Statutes and knowing that a firearm on the seat is concealed, WI is likely.

OR

We have another one playing word games and mind tricks...


OP - Where did this happen?

From a post made 3/8/2009...

I'll take two...

53532 is DeForest, WI.

[NC Bullseye]

Originally Posted by RussP

You're a gentleman and a scholar, thanks for that golf cart ride down memory lane!

[golls17]

Originally Posted by RussP

From a post made 3/8/2009...53532 is DeForest, WI.

Thanks!

[bucksnort1959]

Originally Posted by JuneyBooney

First, there have been cops arrested for that same level of blood alcohol...

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/200...NEWS/904249997

Second, most users of cigars are emptying out the cigars and placing weed in the cigars so they will probably have an expert there to say you had weed and marijuana in the system. Did they pluck a hair from your head?

From what you have described and without the video I don't believe you will win at all. Have you had the case adjudicated yet in your favor? I would work to gt your record clean and expunge or the permit may be gone. If you have a substance abuse problem get it fixed or they may send the feds to ask about gun purchases and lies on the 4473 which is much worse than what you described.

Good luck and the best in this fight.

PS. If you have a drug dog leo friend have him get in your truck and see if the dog "alerts". That would be interesting.

I'm on break so I'll make this quick.
The reading comp on this board is an absolute joke.
My blood was .012
the link says this cop was .12
Math isn't a strong subject