Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:56 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1 post ] 
 Legally correct but JUST PLAIN WRONG 
Author Message
 Post subject: Legally correct but JUST PLAIN WRONG
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:41 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Searches for Guns at the Home of a Suspect's Family Member:

Quote:
Bowen was a felon and likely a gang member who had apparently committed a serious gun crime (shooting at the car of his girlfriend, who was leaving him, with a sawed-off shotgun). The police heard that Bowen "might be staying at his foster mother's home." They therefore got a warrant to search the foster mother's (Augusta Millender's) home for, among other things, "all firearms and firearm-related items."

When they searched the house, they didn't find Bowen or the gun with which he had committed the crime, but they did find and seize "Mrs. Millender's personal shotgun ... and a box of 45-caliber ammunition." Mrs. Millender and the family members with whom she was living (her daughter and her grandson) sued, claiming the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The case eventually ended up before the Ninth Circuit, as Millender v. County of Los Angeles, decided last Wednesday.

Judge Callahan, writing for herself and for Judge Fernandez, held that the defendant police officers were shielded by qualified immunity because the search was authorized by the warrant, and that this would be so even if the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad. Judge Callahan did not express a view on whether the warrant was indeed overbroad.

Judge Fernandez concurred in the majority opinion, agreeing that the officers were shielded by qualified immunity because of the warrant, but concluded that the search was indeed unconstitutional. In this case, he concluded, there was "extremely little support for the search of a third person's home for all firearms and ammunition" (even though the officers thought Bowen was staying at the house, and therefore it was "Bowen's home also").

Judge Ikuta dissented, concluding that "no officer of reasonable competence could have thought [the] affidavit established probable cause to search for the items listed in the warrant," and that therefore the officers couldn't claim qualified immunity. Judge Ikuta also briefly cited D.C. v. Heller, though only in passing, and following a clause that said, "Mere possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime."

A very interesting case, and much worth reading if you're interested in searches and seizures as they affect innocent third parties, if you're interested in gun rights, or if you're interested in both.


Read the comments at the source URL. The county, of course, won't give the INNOCENT lady back her property because it is a legally possessed firearm. Na, na, na, ... just because we can!

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009 ... 1242058319


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1 post ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group