Please help - too afraid to write all details - sister was pulled over for stupid reason (don't want to write) - she was on bad street in nice car on her way somewhere. Officer asked if she had any guns or drugs. She said no drugs, but there is probably gun that is her husband's (he is hunter) and there ispermit and gun is legal. Gun not near her. Ammunition kept separate. They searched car for 15 minutes - would not let her be near the car while they did it. They then said they found loaded weapon. Falsely accused. In report they wrote they stopped her because seat belt not the original reason they told her they were pulling her over - so they lied in their report. They did not read her rights, they would not let her make phone call when she asked. They questioned her for a while - she kept telling her innocence. They took her to jail. She's out on bail. We have trial date. Please help us - we need good lawyer to fight this injustice - they can't do this to people - we have very little faith in our system if this can even happen, we are afraid.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Please help - falsely accused of loaded gun in car & not read rights - maryland
- Thread Starter lenachka
- Start date
- Status
army judge
Super Moderator
Bad street (sounds like Baltimore to me), nice car, on her way to "somewhere"; spells LOOKING FOR ILLEGAL DRUGS to me.
But, that isn't relevant.
She should plead NOT guilty at her arraignment or next hearing.
She should hire a lawyer before the hearing, but if she can't afford one, ask for the court to appoint one to represent her at her arraignment.
She should not discuss this case with anyone, but her attorney.
This will be a hard one to beat.
This is a strict liability crime.
The search could be a weak point.
Who knows? :dunno:
Anyway, that's all you need to know about this at the moment.
She should SHUT UP, plead not guilty, hire a lawyer, or ask the court to appoint one to represent her.
Then she has to wait, wait and NOT talk about this to anyone but her lawyer! :no:
But, that isn't relevant.
She should plead NOT guilty at her arraignment or next hearing.
She should hire a lawyer before the hearing, but if she can't afford one, ask for the court to appoint one to represent her at her arraignment.
She should not discuss this case with anyone, but her attorney.
This will be a hard one to beat.
This is a strict liability crime.
The search could be a weak point.
Who knows? :dunno:
Anyway, that's all you need to know about this at the moment.
She should SHUT UP, plead not guilty, hire a lawyer, or ask the court to appoint one to represent her.
Then she has to wait, wait and NOT talk about this to anyone but her lawyer! :no:
mightymoose
Moderator
The reason does not matter, so long as it was a legitimate violation.
The correct answer was "No".
Whether or not the gun was legally owned, there are still laws regarding the transport of weapons that she may have been in violation of. As the driver, she is responsible for EVERYTHING in that car, whether she owns it or not.
This suggests the gun was concealed- probably in a false compartment.
Did she consent to the search? (She probably did without realizing it)
Did she at any time tell the officers to stop searching? (believe it or not you can do that, though if they have good cause they can hold the vehicle while they attempt to get a warrant)
Well did they find one or didn't they? Are you saying they planted one or are you saying that what they found wasn't loaded?
Was she wearing her seatbelt? Perhaps there were multiple reasons for the stop.
This would not have been necessary unless they continued to question her after she was taken into custody. She was not arrested until after the gun was found, and by then they likely had all the info they needed- so I wouldn't be surprised if they did not ask more questions. She already told them she knew a gun was in the car and then they found one.
Nor should they.... was she going to call in the troops to come rescue her? For officer safety reasons cell phones are often separated from their owners while they are being detained- or they are otherwise not permitted to make calls. The last thing the police want is a bunch of friends and family showing up to complicate things.
They found a loaded weapon in the car. She wasn't innocent- unless you are suggesting they planted it.
The nature and timing of the questions could determine whether Miranda was required or not, though it sounds like she was questioned while detained during the search.
Hire an attorney and plead not guilty. Make them prove their case.
mightymoose
Moderator
From what you provided I find this to be the biggest weakness in the police actions.
It sounds as if you have obtained a copy of the police report somehow? What does it say about the reason for the search? Does it say anything about conest to search? Where was the gun found in the vehicle? Does it say anything about the length of the search?
Where was your sister during the search? Was she in a position where she could have withdrawn consent to searh if she had wanted to? Was she locked in the back of a police car?
She will need to lawyer up and attack the reasonableness of the search... however her admission from the beginning that there was a gun in the vehicle complicates things. That said, if they searched the car for 15 minutes they may have gone beyond the scope of any reasonable warrantless search. Had they been that convinced that there was a weapon in the vehicle but could not find it in plain view or upon a cursory search of the car, they possibly should have obtained a warrant to dig further.
There are probably a variety of factors in play that you did not include here though, so just as easily it may have all been legit.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLIES TO ANSWER:
ARMY JUDGE - She was not looking for drugs. She does not do drugs. She had legitimate reason - following Navigation somehwere. She was tested & car searched. NO DRUGS.
MIGHTY MOOSE -
1) The original reason sounds fishy/stupid. I won't write it because I don't want to write all our 'evidence' against what happened. The fact the officer told her he stopped her for something else is suspect. He did not write the seat belt until after he pulled her over and told her to step out and searched her car. The point is that he did not stop her for this (aren't officers supposed to tell you why they pull you over...so that was not the reason he told her), but that is what he wrote in the report. He omitted the reason he told her altogether.
2) YES, there was a gun as she told them. They said it was loaded. She says no. Her husband (was not there) says no. They do not keep loaded guns. They've had guns for long time. NEVER had issue before or problems with law.
3) THEY PUT HER IN CUFFS AND TOOK HER TO A SPECIAL STATION - A 'SPECIAL' TASK FORCE STATION - NOT REGULAR POLICE STATION WHERE THEY CONTINUED QUESTIONING HER. ISN'T SHE ALLOWED TO MAKE A PHONE CALL WHEN SHE IS ARRESTED?
THEY DID NOT LET HER MAKE PHONE CALL AFTER THE ARREST WHILE THEY WERE QUESTIONING HER - THEY KEPT HER FOR 1 TO 2 HOURS QUESTIONING HER WITHOUT READING HER MIRANDA RIGHTS.
YES, I KNOW IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE...BUT I'M SHOCKED TOO...THIS ISN'T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
4) TO answer your second email:
-They told my sister to stand about 12-15 feet away from her car when they were doing the search, next to another officer, away from my sister's car.
-At one point, she was suspicious of what they were doing and she walked up and said. Excuse, me, but what are you doing? And they yelled at her to go back and stand next to the officer away from the car.
THANK YOU - I'll give my family your input and ask to address all the points you mentioned.
ARMY JUDGE - She was not looking for drugs. She does not do drugs. She had legitimate reason - following Navigation somehwere. She was tested & car searched. NO DRUGS.
MIGHTY MOOSE -
1) The original reason sounds fishy/stupid. I won't write it because I don't want to write all our 'evidence' against what happened. The fact the officer told her he stopped her for something else is suspect. He did not write the seat belt until after he pulled her over and told her to step out and searched her car. The point is that he did not stop her for this (aren't officers supposed to tell you why they pull you over...so that was not the reason he told her), but that is what he wrote in the report. He omitted the reason he told her altogether.
2) YES, there was a gun as she told them. They said it was loaded. She says no. Her husband (was not there) says no. They do not keep loaded guns. They've had guns for long time. NEVER had issue before or problems with law.
3) THEY PUT HER IN CUFFS AND TOOK HER TO A SPECIAL STATION - A 'SPECIAL' TASK FORCE STATION - NOT REGULAR POLICE STATION WHERE THEY CONTINUED QUESTIONING HER. ISN'T SHE ALLOWED TO MAKE A PHONE CALL WHEN SHE IS ARRESTED?
THEY DID NOT LET HER MAKE PHONE CALL AFTER THE ARREST WHILE THEY WERE QUESTIONING HER - THEY KEPT HER FOR 1 TO 2 HOURS QUESTIONING HER WITHOUT READING HER MIRANDA RIGHTS.
YES, I KNOW IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE...BUT I'M SHOCKED TOO...THIS ISN'T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
4) TO answer your second email:
-They told my sister to stand about 12-15 feet away from her car when they were doing the search, next to another officer, away from my sister's car.
-At one point, she was suspicious of what they were doing and she walked up and said. Excuse, me, but what are you doing? And they yelled at her to go back and stand next to the officer away from the car.
THANK YOU - I'll give my family your input and ask to address all the points you mentioned.
army judge
Super Moderator
When you're handcuffed, it doesn't mean you're arrested, if they say the magic words.
What are the words, "You're not under arrest. We're just detaining you." A variant goes, "We're cuffing you for officer safety while we conduct a search of your vehicle."
You can be arrested for a traffic violation. You don't have to be cited and released. If so, an inventory (not a search) of your vehicle is conducted subsequent to your arrest.
mightymoose
Moderator
Doesn't matter... so long as it is a violation that is on the books.
Again, there could have been multiple reasons. Was she wearing her seatbelt? If not, she doesn't have much to complain about.
So she knew admitted there was a weapon in the car but claims it is her husband's and she doesn't really know anything else about it... so she wouldn't really KNOW if it was loaded or not... just assumed so.
This was AFTER they found the gun, correct?
It is at this point she should have been advised of her rights IF they were asking questions about her possession of the gun.
No. That typically is not allowed until after the booking process is completed at the jail. There is no right to an immediate call whenever you want it.
This could be a problem for the police- but it would really depend on the nature of the questions being asked. Did they have her sign any documents during this time? She may have signed a written waiver.
This is not a problem. The distance is for officer safety reasons, and from that distance she could easily have withdrawn consent to search at any time. She just wasn't aware that it was an option.
I would have yelled at her too... for all I know she was going to stick a knife in my back. If she wanted the police to stop searching she needed to speak up and say so. She likely does not realize it, but she most likely gave consent to search the car for the gun right off the bat- probably immediately after she admitted to having one.
I still don't see why it took them 15 minutes to find the gun... there is more to the story.
mightymoose
Moderator
You don't need handcuffs to be under arrest. It has more to do with your freedom to leave.
mightymoose
Moderator
And to add to that- a detention is for a reasonable period to investigate the potential crime. In this case she was cuffed and moved to another location, so she was arrested UNLESS she consented... which is very possible because people just love to agree with the police.
Careful... only a certain area of the vehicle would be subject to "search" upon arrest. The "inventory" that we like to rely on is involved with towing the vehicle. If the vehicle doesn't get towed then finding anything outside the immediate reach of the driver's area or not in plain view could be a problem.
Last edited:
army judge
Super Moderator
I've seen the police to be foolish in fewer than 15% of the cases I've litigated.
I hate to say it, but people usually cut their own throats.
mightymoose
Moderator
Yes, I agree... which is why I believe in this case the OP's sister blew it right off the bat by admitting there was a gun and consenting to the search. I can picture how this went down, and it is probably all legit. I'm not sure what happened with the alleged questioning after the arrest though... sometimes we just get ahead of ourselves and overlook the basics.
- Status
Share this page
