Gun Permit Insufficient Cause for Car Search

[Truebeliever]

“On you” means on you, words matter. “With you” would have been the proper question.

Welcome to the world on colloquial sayings. Let’s say if you cut yourself and ask for a band-aid, I should say” I don’t have any “ because the adhesive bandages I have are made by a different company?

It doesn’t matter. It was his hesitation that “told “ the cop he had a gun.

Reaction to a question sometimes tells more than the answer.

Before the Lopez case, a certain case was where a cop would ask if there were any weapons in the car with a little joke about nuclear devices. Their reaction would tell him if there was a gun in the car. He was very successful in “knowing “ which cars based on those reactions.

I knew a cop who could spot stolen cars before they were reported stolen.

I knew a cop who could spot people carrying guns where I couldn’t .

I could spot a hand to hand drug exchange where another cop couldn’t. It was right in front of him.

There are things you spot that are glaring to you where someone else misses.

 

[fartgamer]

Who cares what the cop was “told”? Not the judge.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I wonder if this ruling will set a precedent that would help us should these social media check bills actually become laws? IE. having a permit isn't grounds for access to your social media and internet searches.

 

[Shadow2]

Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't make it bad one. Your just a cop not a judge.

The judge is wrong in his decision.

The permit makes asking the question about the presence of firearms reasonable and goes beyond a mere hunch.

The ehh noise from the defendant’s mouth is an indication he is lying. The decision is not binding any other case.

Sorry, you might disagree with the law but the questioning and search were good . Just because you disagree with the law doesn’t mean the officers were wrong.

 

[Shadow2]

Ohhh you mean cops go fishing based on percentages ...we never knew that. And they aren't always right but only tell about the times they where to look justified in there actions.

Welcome to the world on colloquial sayings. Let’s say if you cut yourself and ask for a band-aid, I should say” I don’t have any “ because the adhesive bandages I have are made by a different company?

It doesn’t matter. It was his hesitation that “told “ the cop he had a gun.

Reaction to a question sometimes tells more than the answer.

Before the Lopez case, a certain case was where a cop would ask if there were any weapons in the car with a little joke about nuclear devices. Their reaction would tell him if there was a gun in the car. He was very successful in “knowing “ which cars based on those reactions.

I knew a cop who could spot stolen cars before they were reported stolen.

I knew a cop who could spot people carrying guns where I couldn’t .

I could spot a hand to hand drug exchange where another cop couldn’t. It was right in front of him.

There are things you spot that are glaring to you where someone else misses.

 

[Acer-m14]

I knew a cop who could spot stolen cars before they were reported stolen.

I knew a cop who could spot people carrying guns where I couldn’t .

I could spot a hand to hand drug exchange where another cop couldn’t. It was right in front of him.

 

[C3D]

I knew a cop who could spot stolen cars before they were reported stolen.

I knew a cop who could spot people carrying guns where I couldn’t .

Unfortunately ESP is not an articulable basis for reasonable suspicion.

 

[Truebeliever]

Ohhh you mean cops go fishing based on percentages ...we never knew that. And they aren't always right but only tell about the times they where to look justified in there actions.

What shows that this isn’t a fishing expedition is his call for back up and waiting. And from the transcript alone , I could see that the driver’s answer indicted there was a gun. Not a fishing expedition. The judge was wrong and the cop followed the case law to the letter.

He can just on reasonable suspicion have the person exit the car and frisk him. He did that. He found a loaded magazine on him. Probable cause has been established.

The judge was wrong.

 

[Marine Cpl]

 

[Truebeliever]

Unfortunately ESP is not an articulable basis for reasonable suspicion.

They could articulate the reason. A broken window or rolled down. A broken key lock or cracked steering wheel cover. They could explain what they saw , just as I could with the hand to hand for drugs. You develop an eye for it. I used to be able to spot an expired inspection sticker on a car moving on the highway in the opposite direction.

A neurologist can see issues in a patient by the way they walk that a doctor of a different speciality would miss. Things that scream out to them that other doctors miss. A skill developed by practice and experience.

It is the same with cops.

 

[Doc8404]

True.

Similar, same actually, when I can see when people don’t know what they are talking about.

 

[togmaster]

They could articulate the reason. A broken window or rolled down. A broken key lock or cracked steering wheel cover. They could explain what they saw , just as I could with the hand to hand for drugs. You develop an eye for it. I used to be able to spot an expired inspection sticker on a car moving on the highway in the opposite direction.

A neurologist can see issues in a patient by the way they walk that a doctor of a different speciality would miss. Things that scream out to them that other doctors miss. A skill developed by practice and experience.

It is the same with cops.

Bet you were the top revenue producer on your job.

 

[Robin]

When all else fails, 'failure to keep right' alway works.
Robin

 

[Day444]

Incorrect. NYSPIN does NOT HAVE that information in it.

Maybe not, but it will show up on a File 15 (Rap Sheet).

 

[livingston]

Incorrect. NYSPIN does NOT HAVE that information in it.

Article states that he handed over an out of state pistol permit.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/new-york-court-order-concludes-gun-permit-insufficient-cause-for-car-search/#ixzz5aWaFJVtK
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


“The Court does not find that the search of the Defendant's car was justified in any manner and accordingly grants the Defendant's motion and suppresses any evidence obtained from the search of the Defendant's car,” George E. Fufidio, Judge of the Westchester County Court wrote. That’s a significant opinion benefiting not just the defendant in the case of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- JONATHAN ROSE, Defendant, but for gun owners who find themselves in a similar situation.

Rose was charged with “class C violent felonies of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (two counts), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree (three counts), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (four counts) and a violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 402.”

“It is alleged that the defendant possessed two loaded and operable semi-automatic pistols, three large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and various Kung Fu stars and metal knuckles,” the court document recounts. “These items were found pursuant to a search of the defendant's motor vehicle by the Rye City Police after a traffic stop on May 5, 2017.

The search resulted after Rose, who had recently moved to New York, “inadvertently” handed over “a valid Grand County Colorado concealed handgun permit” along with “a valid Colorado driver's license [and] a valid New York identification card” while looking for his vehicle registration after being pulled over for a missing front license plate.
New York Court Order Concludes Gun Permit Insufficient Cause for Car Search

 

[Rocpo]

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/new-york-court-order-concludes-gun-permit-insufficient-cause-for-car-search/#ixzz5aWaFJVtK
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


“The Court does not find that the search of the Defendant's car was justified in any manner and accordingly grants the Defendant's motion and suppresses any evidence obtained from the search of the Defendant's car,” George E. Fufidio, Judge of the Westchester County Court wrote. That’s a significant opinion benefiting not just the defendant in the case of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- JONATHAN ROSE, Defendant, but for gun owners who find themselves in a similar situation.

Rose was charged with “class C violent felonies of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (two counts), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree (three counts), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (four counts) and a violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 402.”

“It is alleged that the defendant possessed two loaded and operable semi-automatic pistols, three large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and various Kung Fu stars and metal knuckles,” the court document recounts. “These items were found pursuant to a search of the defendant's motor vehicle by the Rye City Police after a traffic stop on May 5, 2017.

The search resulted after Rose, who had recently moved to New York, “inadvertently” handed over “a valid Grand County Colorado concealed handgun permit” along with “a valid Colorado driver's license [and] a valid New York identification card” while looking for his vehicle registration after being pulled over for a missing front license plate.
New York Court Order Concludes Gun Permit Insufficient Cause for Car Search

Don't see your point other than copy and paste of the article

 

[Truebeliever]

I Had to read Scirbd of case in the article
to see I had one issue in the fact pattern wrong. The magazine was found when he was brought out of the car and frisked-but in the map pocket of the door by a second officer.

The case does not have a binding effect. And the judge is still wrong in that officer detected the lie. And because the officer kept a calm denemor

317 [2012]).” The Court finds that
underpinning this whole decision is the fact that the Defendant's handgun permit was from
Colorado and that New York State does not offer reciprocity for other state's concealed carry
permits, accordingly, there is an articulable undercurrent of criminality on that factor alone. The
Court has no question that the knowledge of such a permit creates a quantum of suspicion that
the licensee may have a gun, the question that this Court is faced with is to what degree.”

“
on the Defendant because of the traffic stop and the
information that he learned from the defendant byway of his concealed carry permit was open
for a minimally intrusive limited inquiry by questioning about whether he had a gun on him. The
Defendant denied having a gun on him or in his car and the resulting observations made by
Officer Kapus in response to the questions about the gun were validly obtained.
In addition, Officer Kapus was justified in asking the Defendantto step out ofthe car
during their interaction (Peopl(! v Robinson, 74 NY2d 773 [1989]). He did not do so initially
because, according to him, Rye City Police policy was to have two officers on scene when
someone is removed from Rcar and initially he was the only officer on the scene.”

“he sum of Officer Kapus's testimony demonstrates that he had a hunch that the
defendant was lying about the location of his guns, however, there is nothing that he can point to
that demonstrably shows that the Defendant was in fact lying about them. Taking the permit by
itself, because the Court does not find that the Defendant was acting more nervously than anyone
else who has just been stopped by the police, not does the Court find that he acted aggressively
towards Officer Kapus when trying to retrieve his handgun permit, this Court feels that the
presence of the permit, more so than the donning of a bullet proof vest as in Batista, creates a
reasonable and articulable suspicion that the Defendant might have a gun on his person and if he
did without permission to have it, there is also a reasonable and articulable suspicIon that the
Defendant was committing a crime.] However, there. is nothing from the facts presented at this
hearing that would lead this Court to believe that Officer Kapus could have reasonably suspected
that the Defendant presented an actual danger. Accordingly, the Officer's pat down search of the
Defendant was not justified, however, no evidence was recovered from the Defendant as a result,
nor was anything learned that led to an increased degree of suspicion.
Turning now to the search of the Defendant's car. The People suggest that the search
was justified because Officer Kapus had probable cause to search the car or, in the alternative,
that a justification to search can be found in the line of cases derived from People v Torres, 74
NY2d 224 [1989] where the substantial likelihood ofa weapon in a car, coupled with an actual
and specific danger created by that weapon is enough to warrant a limited search for that weapon.
to neutralize that threat. The Court finds that neither of these theories...”

The whole case of the judge still came down to what the judge thought the cop was “feeling” at the time. And the cop couldn’t PROVE it was a lie.

And that his fumbling for the paperwork was normal and trying recover the permit back from the officer ‘s hand was normal in his mind.

Things like saying the officer wasn’t concerned because he sat in his car for six minutes waiting for backup is flat out wrong. We do that all the time with dangerous people as not to alert them .

The judge is wrong on his interpretation

“Here, there is nothing in the Defendant's behavior, before, during or after the interaction
with Officer Kapus that would justify the belief that a weapon in the Defendant's car posed an
actual and specific danger. This is underscored by the Officer's own actions taken in the course
of this stop. Officer Kapus, after receiving the Defendant's conceal carry permit turned his back
on the Defendant and walked back to his patrol car. He left the Defendant alone in his car for
approximately six minutes while he waited for back up to arrive”

That is done all the time. There are plenty of dash cam to show if people want to take the time to look.

 

[Shadow2]

A magazine is not probable cause of a dam thing in the state of NY, that Gestapo shit may fly in NYC god only knows what the laws on magazines are there. If I get pulled over in Westchester and treated like that over a magazine I'll tell you to go scratch your own ass. If that's how the search went down i commend the judge ... The judge followed case law to the letter you may want to get up too speed its been establish that the presence of an actual gun is not probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed never mind a single magazine.

Back to the basics don't talk to police at all.

Unfortunately ESP is not an articulable basis for reasonable suspicion.

What shows that this isn’t a fishing expedition is his call for back up and waiting. And from the transcript alone , I could see that the driver’s answer indicted there was a gun. Not a fishing expedition. The judge was wrong and the cop followed the case law to the letter.

He can just on reasonable suspicion have the person exit the car and frisk him. He did that. He found a loaded magazine on him. Probable cause has been established.

The judge was wrong.

 

[Shadow2]

You want me to watch a movie, if that is where cops are learning about law we have a real problem in the US.

Dude, go read the actual decision. The judge “disagreed “ with description of the action as opposed to the action itself. The judge is just flat out wrong or is himself lying to get to his decision. Even the article mentions they think he got the DA description of the event and the cops mixed up. And if I pull you over and as you sit in the car and I say “do you have drugs on you”- it doesn’t mean just on your person but in the car too.

As far as lying let’s give an example:

Go watch my cousin Vinny. Are the witnesses lying or misinterpretating what they saw. There is a difference.

The judge is flat out wrong.

 

[Truebeliever]

You want me to watch a movie, if that is where cops are learning about law we have a real problem in the US.

I use movies to demonstrate. It is a good illustration of how testimony is done without lying and can be wrong.

It’s is a comedy of the differences of culture and perception.

I know lawyers and law teachers who use movie examples to explain it. My old partner would use movies to explain things to people all the time and specifically this movie, to great effect.

Language and sooiler alert.
A small example:


Or

Another example from the movie:
Original testimony


Vs

Cross.


And the character is not lying. It was his perception.

Or expert testimony


Vs another expert



No one is lying . It is their perception and understanding of events.

Thevuse of movies to explain tona jury helps

For example how do you explain a furtive or suspicious movement.
I might say he moved like Benicio Del Toro in the usual suspects when his character was first arrested.


Note how his character suddenly changed directions and kept looking back.

 

[Acer-m14]

I used to be able to spot an expired inspection sticker on a car moving on the highway in the opposite direction.

well .. no front plate .. so i guess he had not a NY stickers on the window just a out of state one .. so no front plate needed ..

guess that LEO .. need a eye exam or a eye transplant (Eagle Eyes) ..

 

[Shadow2]

furtive or suspicious movement. I explain it as a medical condition called border line delusional disorder. When you see shit that isn't there. At the height of stop and frisk in NYC the number people who where never charged with a crime after suspicious behavior numbered just under 325,000 a year.

a little reading material for everyone ... Right to Know Is Now the Law. Here’s What That Means.

love this part below .. your not suspected of a crime but we get too search you anyway and hope we find something to charge you or someone else with.

"The law, which took effect Friday, also spells out what officers must do before searching individuals, their belongings or their homes in cases where the person is not suspected of a crime or there is probable cause to conduct a search."

 

[Truebeliever]

A magazine is not probable cause of a dam thing in the state of NY, that Gestapo shit may fly in NYC god only knows what the laws on magazines are there. If I get pulled over in Westchester and treated like that over a magazine I'll tell you to go scratch your own ass. If that's how the search went down i commend the judge ... The judge followed case law to the letter you may want to get up too speed its been establish that the presence of an actual gun is not probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed never mind a single magazine.

Back to the basics don't talk to police at all.

A loaded magazine or ammo found is probable cause to search for a gun. The difference in this case is that I was initially mistaken that it was found on him, it actually was found in the door pocket . Then they searched the rest of the car.

The jusge goes into depth of the fear of the officer as to the gun. He was wrong in that interpretation of that because the officer didn’t act afraid on camera. He wasn’t.

He is wrong on the interpretation of what the officer saw , knew, and felt.

Thank God this is not binding.

And I was just a cop. Sure but the point is it is a cops point of view at question.

 

[Truebeliever]

furtive or suspicious movement. I explain it as a medical condition called border line delusional disorder. When you see shit that isn't there. At the height of stop and frisk in NYC the number people who where never charged with a crime after suspicious behavior numbered just under 325,000 a year.

a little reading material for everyone ... Right to Know Is Now the Law. Here’s What That Means.

love this part below .. your not suspected of a crime but we get too search you anyway and hope we find something to charge you or someone else with.

"The law, which took effect Friday, also spells out what officers must do before searching individuals, their belongings or their homes in cases where the person is not suspected of a crime or there is probable cause to conduct a search."

And then look up the quota they had to write out on that form.

People would not “be stopped” and their name would go on that form. Or a person was stopped for a ticketable offense, wasn’t given a ticket, but their name was put on that form instead.

That argument was like the liberals in the 90s saying no one wants to stay on welfare and not work and had statistics to back it up.

Go look at some of the quota cases that their union filed if you don’t believe me

."Ghost 250s", fake stop-and-frisk reports with no names, fabricated to make quota at the end of the month”

Adrian Schoolcraft - Wikipedia

So that documentation of it is faulty at best. And how many times was that paper not filed out especially if an arrest was made on that stop.

Stop and frisk does not mean a search or a frisk was done. If the NYPD cop stopped to talk to someone they would write that person’s name on that form including common right of inquiry questions like “do you live here” or to “ is the store still open “ with a “thank you “ and “bye” to meet that quota. Not a forcible stop.

Don’t believe me, ask an NYPD cop who was working during that period.

 

[Shadow2]

I don't know where you work but its either out of state or in the Communist NYC because NYSP do not agree with you at all. And neither did the judge that heard the case that prompted this field guide to be updated.

If an officer "HAS" probable cause ... the existence of the magazine itself is not probable cause.

I have the urge to leave a glock mag in my back seat now ... I hate glocks would never own one. but i can have a mag and keep it in my back seat because its not illegal to store mags to a gun that I don't even own in my back seat.


D. Right to check and inspect magazines v. firearms
Absent some indication of criminal activity, there is no right to inspect the contents of a magazine to ensure that it meets the requirements under the Safe Act. If an officer has probable cause to believe that a particular magazine is unlawful, he or she may seize and inspect it. If there is founded suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may ask for consent to check the magazine. However, the mere existence of a magazine, which mayor may not be legal, does not provide probable cause to believe that any law is being broken.If the weapon is one for which a permit is required, police will be justified in checking the permit to ensure that the person lawfully possesses the firearm. If a permit cannot be produced, the officer would be legally justified in seizing the firearm and conducting aninventory of its contents. In this case, the inventory would include checking the magazinein order to account for each round. However, if the person produces a permit and there are no indications of unlawful conduct, an inspection of the magazine would beunnecessary. In this case, the weapon should be secured temporarily, in the same condition as it was found, for the duration of the stop and returned to the motorist at the conclusion of the encounter.


Another judge who doesn't know what he's talking about I guess. All these retarded judges respecting the constitution its disgusting.
Court Rules That it is Illegal for Police to Stop and Investigate People Just for Carrying Guns | 93.1 WIBC

And then look up the quota they had to write out on that form.

People would not “be stopped” and their name would go on that form. Or a person was stopped for a ticketable offense, wasn’t given a ticket, but their name was put on that form instead.

That argument was like the liberals in the 90s saying no one wants to stay on welfare and not work and had statistics to back it up.

Go look at some of the quota cases that their union filed if you don’t believe me

."Ghost 250s", fake stop-and-frisk reports with no names, fabricated to make quota at the end of the month”

Adrian Schoolcraft - Wikipedia

So that documentation of it is faulty at best. And how many times was that paper not filed out especially if an arrest was made on that stop.

Stop and frisk does not mean a search or a frisk was done. If the NYPD cop stopped to talk to someone they would write that person’s name on that form including common right of inquiry questions like “do you live here” or to “ is the store still open “ with a “thank you “ and “bye” to meet that quota. Not a forcible stop.

Don’t believe me, ask an NYPD cop who was working during that period.

A loaded magazine or ammo found is probable cause to search for a gun. The difference in this case is that I was initially mistaken that it was found on him, it actually was found in the door pocket . Then they searched the rest of the car.

The jusge goes into depth of the fear of the officer as to the gun. He was wrong in that interpretation of that because the officer didn’t act afraid on camera. He wasn’t.

He is wrong on the interpretation of what the officer saw , knew, and felt.

Thank God this is not binding.

And I was just a cop. Sure but the point is it is a cops point of view at question.

 

[Truebeliever]

I don't know where you work but its either out of state or in the Communist NYC because NYSP do not agree with you at all. And neither did the judge that heard the case that prompted this field guide to be updated.

If an officer "HAS" probable cause ... the existence of the magazine itself is not probable cause.

I have the urge to leave a glock mag in my back seat now ... I hate glocks would never own one. but i can have a mag and keep it in my back seat because its not illegal to store mags to a gun that I don't even own in my back seat.


D. Right to check and inspect magazines v. firearms
Absent some indication of criminal activity, there is no right to inspect the contents of a magazine to ensure that it meets the requirements under the Safe Act. If an officer has probable cause to believe that a particular magazine is unlawful, he or she may seize and inspect it. If there is founded suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may ask for consent to check the magazine. However, the mere existence of a magazine, which mayor may not be legal, does not provide probable cause to believe that any law is being broken.If the weapon is one for which a permit is required, police will be justified in checking the permit to ensure that the person lawfully possesses the firearm. If a permit cannot be produced, the officer would be legally justified in seizing the firearm and conducting aninventory of its contents. In this case, the inventory would include checking the magazinein order to account for each round. However, if the person produces a permit and there are no indications of unlawful conduct, an inspection of the magazine would beunnecessary. In this case, the weapon should be secured temporarily, in the same condition as it was found, for the duration of the stop and returned to the motorist at the conclusion of the encounter.


Another judge who doesn't know what he's talking about I guess. All these retarded judges respecting the constitution its disgusting.
Court Rules That it is Illegal for Police to Stop and Investigate People Just for Carrying Guns | 93.1 WIBC

You are reading it wrong. That was referring to a magazine with a legal gun owner. Possession of a magazine IS probable cause to search for a gun in NYS state. Numerous court cases have said it including an arrest I made with a gangbanger where the magazine was seen nd it was probable cause for the search. A gun was recovered. And he had a prior convinction for selling crack and other violent crimes .

Again, that part of the guide was referring to legal gun owners.

"If an officer has probable cause to believe that a particular magazine is unlawful, he or she may seize and inspect it.....However, the mere existence of a magazine, which may or may not be legal, does not provide probable cause to believe that any law is being broken."

It is referring to legal gun owner and inspection of the magazine.

And before you bring up this case:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...t-after-finding-ammo-magazines-in-his-pocket/

It is where they found the magazine on him, then arrested him and found his car ( it was not a car stop ) , searched the car and then found the gun.

There was no “ probable cause” for the initial arrest because a magazine possession is not illegal of its self . Probable cause to arrest is different than for a search.

 

[Shadow2]

And if your a legal gun owner what possible excuse could you BS the judge with that you had cause to search.

You are reading it wrong. That was referring to a magazine with a legal gun owner. Possession of a magazine IS probable cause to search for a gun in NYS state. Numerous court cases have said it including an arrest I made with a gangbanger where the magazine was seen nd it was probable cause for the search. A gun was recovered. And he had a prior convinction for selling crack and other violent crimes .

Again, that part of the guide was referring to legal gun owners.

 

[Truebeliever]

And if your a legal gun owner what possible excuse could you BS the judge with that you had cause to search.

For a legal gun owner? Search for what?
It’s legal. You mean for something else or just the gun or magazines?

 

[GOPerfect]

Me, I do not care about the decision of the Judge; good or bad, I do not care.

What I do care about is this cop going fishing and harassing this individual over nothing but a missing plate. Ticket him for the plate, tell him to have a nice day and both be on their merry ways.

But, what do I know?

 

[Shadow2]

Just magazines no guns .. please tell me how you justify the search based on a magazine when no guns are found. and no other crime is committed.

For a legal gun owner? Search for what?
It’s legal. You mean for something else or just the gun or magazines?