Guy arrested in Jersey City for "Assault" weapon possession

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I agree, but the way to help him and us are to fight to have unconstitutional laws ripped off the books by the Judicial system.

 

I wish there was punishment and consequences for politicians that pass unconstitutional laws.

 

Uhhhh, or we could show this guy some popular support. Help the legal fund, etc. This is a perfect case to pursue, if he loses, he can appeal, and if all goes well, go all the way to SCOTUS.

 

This is the case that can undo the NJ AWB.

[Dan 177]

That would work, let this guy's case be the challenge, to demonstrate that NJ's laws are illegal and unconstitutional.

[djg0770 481]

Seems to me that all of the "finding" of the rifle and mags whether legal or not are fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

I believe that even in NJ the 4th amendment still applies:

 

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^.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Seems to me that all of the "finding" of the rifle and mags whether legal or not are fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

I believe that even in NJ the 4th amendment still applies:

 

[/sup]

 

Depends. Its falls under that category if the search were done illegally. I don't believe that was the case. The landlord had the right to access the unit to access the particular utility, he allowed the police to enter, and that's how they came upon the firearms. I think it meets this exception: "it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source"

[Soju 153]

You think police entering without a warrant and then proceeding to search (as opposed to just seeing it laying there) is independent and untainted? Really?

 

Despite that they didn't have a warrant, I think the 'good faith' exception is a better argument...

[AnthonyG 36]

although he broke the law, the process in which they obtained the evidence is illegal. Landlord can not let police into a persons residence just because they own firearms. Law enforcement needs a warrant to search a premises unless it was a case where they heard screams from his apartment or heard gun shots. They need a justifiable cause knowing he owns guns is not.

[TK421 2]

NJ.com is reporting:

 

 

 

http://www.nj.com/jj...ay_man_had.html

 

Bayo lug and threaded barrel on the AR. Then the 30 round "normal" capacity mags which NJ deems illegal.... not looking good if this is true. In 90% of the rest of this country, this would be a non-issue, but here in wonderful NJ, things are different.

 

Hopefully the cops are being optimistic, and the bayo lug is actually ground down, muzzle brake pinned, and the 30 round mag is actually a permanently altered 30/15. We'll see.

 

So I guess the questions that needs to be asked are; are those weapons and magazines "in common use" and are they suitable for use by the "militia"? I think if this is true Nappen may be going for the coup de grâce on New Jersey's assault weapon ban.

[mcm308 0]

 

So I guess the questions that needs to be asked are; are those weapons and magazines "in common use" and are they suitable for use by the "militia"? I think if this is true Nappen may be going for the coup de grâce on New Jersey's assault weapon ban.

 

I said that in an earlier post.

 

Molon Labe

 

 

[DevsAdvocate 112]

You think police entering without a warrant and then proceeding to search (as opposed to just seeing it laying there) is independent and untainted? Really?

 

Despite that they didn't have a warrant, I think the 'good faith' exception is a better argument...

 

 

They entered without a warrant because they were given permission by the landlord because they were called in by the upstairs neighbor to investigate a complaint regarding a utility in the apartment of the accused. They found the accused in their room, with a loaded gun, which they deemed enough PC to search for additional firearms... at least that's how the story goes from what I've heard.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

although he broke the law, the process in which they obtained the evidence is illegal. Landlord can not let police into a persons residence just because they own firearms. Law enforcement needs a warrant to search a premises unless it was a case where they heard screams from his apartment or heard gun shots. They need a justifiable cause knowing he owns guns is not.

 

Is it illegal?

 

For one thing, the landlord didn't let them in just because he had guns, but there was an issue regarding a complain about the utilities. The upstairs neighbor had an issue with the downstairs one regarding the water heater or something. Law enforcement needs PC to enter on their own... but when they're invited in? By the landlord?

 

They also caught the guy with a loaded gun on his bed too...

[DevsAdvocate 112]

So I guess the questions that needs to be asked are; are those weapons and magazines "in common use" and are they suitable for use by the "militia"? I think if this is true Nappen may be going for the coup de grâce on New Jersey's assault weapon ban.

 

Is that even a question? States like NJ are in a minority when it comes to their gun control laws.

[Night Prowler 0]

I believe they might of had a reason to enter the apartment and as long as he had a legal pistol that is where it should of stopped. Before the search went any further the legality of the pistol should of been determined. If it turned out to be illegal at that point that maybe probable cause to continue the search or obtain a search warrant. If it was a legal pistol they are in violation of his rights. If you were open carrying a pistol on your property and a cop happened to drive by and see it, that would not be probable cause to enter your house and search it. I think it needs to be determined if they even had a right to enter and examine the heat situation. After all they are police and not repair men. What would they really have done to correct the situation.

[PeteF 1,044]

Police had ZERO reason to enter the apartment. No obvious crime was being commited and there is nothing that says the leos had a warrant. No exigent circumstances.

 

The landlord can only enter without permission for a very limited set of reasons.

 

Broken pipe, smell of gas, fire etc, these are all emergencies.

 

No emergencies were occuring.

 

He will walk on the charges but he won't get

the gun and mags back.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I believe they had reason to enter the apartment and as long as he had a legal pistol that is where it should of stopped. Before the search went any further the legality of the pistol should of been determined. If it turned out to be illegal at that point that maybe probable cause to continue the search or obtain a search warrant. If it was a legal pistol they are in violation of his rights. If you were open carrying a pistol on your property and a cop happened to drive by and see it, that would not be probable cause to enter your house and search it. I think it needs to be determined if they even had a right to enter and examine the heat situation. After all they are police and not repair men. What would they really have done to correct the situation.

 

Right, but how were the police to determine that?

 

In their minds, their first step is to secure any and all firearms and then determine to see if someone is legally prohibited from owning them or not. You think they'll blindly trust an FPID? If this person had one?

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Police had ZERO reason to enter the apartment. No obvious crime was being commited and there is nothing that says the leos had a warrant. No exigent circumstances.

 

The landlord can only enter without permission for a very limited set of reasons.

 

Broken pipe, smell of gas, fire etc, these are all emergencies.

 

No emergencies were occuring.

 

He will walk on the charges but he won't get

the gun and mags back.

 

They were invited in and were confronted with an armed individual, that's the narrative.

[Night Prowler 0]

I'm sure when they saw the gun they had him cuffed and on the floor. I don't think it would take the police that long to run a few numbers and determine the legality of an exposed firearm. Let's say he was cleaning his pistol and he had heard the door. If he opened it a crack and the police happen to see it does that give them the right to search his apartment. They were not called for criminal activity and as long as the firearm in plain sight is legal I don't see how they have a right to search any further. Now if he had a 30 round mag in plain sight as well, that's a different story. From the information released it sounds as if the pistol was the only firearm in plain sight.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I'm sure when they saw the gun they had him cuffed and on the floor. I don't think it would take the police that long to run a few numbers and determine the legality of an exposed firearm. Let's say he was cleaning his pistol and he had heard the door. If he opened it a crack and the police happen to see it does that give them the right to search his apartment. They were not called for criminal activity and as long as the firearm in plain sight is legal I don't see how they have a right to search any further. Now if he had a 30 round mag in plain sight as well, that's a different story. From the information released it sounds as if the pistol was the only firearm in plain sight.

 

Let's focus on the facts at hand here. When they saw the gun after entering the apartment legally, they conducted a search, probably after detaining the guy.

[PeteF 1,044]

 

 

They were invited in and were confronted with an armed individual, that's the narrative.

 

They were not invited by the only person who has the right to invite them in.

(In a non-emergency, unscheduled situation)

[Wile E Coyote 0]

 

 

Let's focus on the facts at hand here. When they saw the gun after entering the apartment legally, they conducted a search, probably after detaining the guy.

 

If they saw a bottle of prescription pills on the kitchen table in plain sight, does that give police PC to search the apartment for weed or cocaine? After all they are both drugs, only difference is that one is legal and the others aren't. How does legally possessed property grant probable cause that a crime has been committed?

 

If this guy was carrying on the street or in his car that'd be a totally different story because the law says you are presumed to not possess a permit until you produce one but he was in his dwelling.

 

This guy was exercising a constitutionally protected right inside his home and the police used that against him to conduct a search of his apartment which yielded contraband. I think the prosecution is going to have a tough road if they try to argue the cops should be able to assume every gun they come across, whether it is in an exempted place or not, is illegal until proven otherwise.

 

As far as detaining him, I get it officer safety and all. But was he under arrest before they found the AR? If so why the rush for the search? "Hey we think we got an illegal gun in a residence, can we get a warrant to toss the place? We can. Ok." Case closed. IMHO the guy is cooked in that scenario. From what we know so far in this one, I'm not so sure.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

They were not invited by the only person who has the right to invite them in.

(In a non-emergency, unscheduled situation)

 

This is the folley of rental properties. You don't own that property and do not have an exclusive right to accessing it. Especially in this instance when there was an issue over a shared utility (aka the water heater).

 

The landlord as part of his duties has the right to access the premises, and he I imagine that includes allowing the police access. Especially if there was a complaint against the tenant regarding tampering with the water heater. The police wanted to respond to the complaint and investigate.

 

It's a 4th Amendment issue, but given the increasingly lax protections on that right, I wouldn't be surprised if the police were right to do what they did.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

If they saw a bottle of prescription pills on the kitchen table in plain sight, does that give police PC to search the apartment for weed or cocaine? After all they are both drugs, only difference is that one is legal and the others aren't. How does legally possessed property grant probable cause that a crime has been committed?

 

If this guy was carrying on the street or in his car that'd be a totally different story because the law says you are presumed to not possess a permit until you produce one but he was in his dwelling.

 

This guy was exercising a constitutionally protected right inside his home and the police used that against him to conduct a search of his apartment which yielded contraband. I think the prosecution is going to have a tough road if they try to argue the cops should be able to assume every gun they come across, whether it is in an exempted place or not, is illegal until proven otherwise.

 

As far as detaining him, I get it officer safety and all. But was he under arrest before they found the AR? If so why the rush for the search? "Hey we think we got an illegal gun in a residence, can we get a warrant to toss the place? We can. Ok." Case closed. IMHO the guy is cooked in that scenario. From what we know so far in this one, I'm not so sure.

 

Bottle of pills? Of course not. But you're being facetious in expecting that scenario to be similar to that involving a firearm. Logically, I agree, but the big thing to consider here is that the police were invited inside, they didn't kick down the door or enter illegally.

 

As for finding the AR-15 and mags, I may need to refresh my memory, but they never detailed how those were found. What if he had them piled in the corner of his room?

[Wile E Coyote 0]

If we assume the cops did enter legally and the AR & mags were in plain sight, I'd say this guy has no shot in the NJ court system. However, if on a broken boiler call, the officers used a legally possessed handgun in plain sight as PC to search the entire place I'd say he could get out of it.

 

Ultimately I think this guy is another causality of the NJ mentality that all firearms in the state are illegal. Well, despite that attitude, they aren't.

 

Hell, in some states with a strong castle doctrine (not that I think it'd be right or smart), this guy might have been able to get away with taking a shot at them when they were in the living room if they didn't announce themselves.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

If we assume the cops did enter legally and the AR & mags were in plain sight, I'd say this guy has no shot in the NJ court system. However, if on a broken boiler call, the officers used a legally possessed handgun in plain sight as PC to search the entire place I'd say he could get out of it.

 

Ultimately I think this guy is another causality of the NJ mentality that all firearms in the state are illegal. Well, despite that attitude, they aren't.

 

Hell, in some states with a strong castle doctrine (not that I think it'd be right or smart), this guy might have been able to get away with taking a shot at them when they were in the living room if they didn't announce themselves.

 

I don't see what the big deal is... this could be the case we've been waiting for to challenge the AWB in the courts.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Well if the landlord allowed them access and they saw him with the gun then the first thing then becomes to secure the weapons and secure the scene. Not just because of officer safety but the possibility of collateral damage in an apartment complex. How did they know if he had more weapons . We're they in plain view? If so no warrant needed. Plain view is an exception. Once the rifle is found maybe the officer knew about firearms and realized it is illegal. A bayonet lug is not hard to spot. Everything else can be checked after e fact

[Wile E Coyote 0]

 

 

I don't see what the big deal is... this could be the case we've been waiting for to challenge the AWB in the courts.

 

Then I think you and others are going to be disappointed. First, I think Nappen is going to try and get the whole thing tossed due to illegal entry. Plan B is attacking the search after finding the supposedly legal handgun. If neither of those work and the supposedly NJ illegal AR is admitted into evidence, he'll go after the ridiculous "evil features."

 

If this eventually turns into a NJ AWB challenge, I'm not convinced this has any more or less chance to succeed than any other AWB related case. Hopefully I'm mistaken.

[BlueLineFish 615]

The whole case rests on the validity of the entry. If the entry is deemed illegal then the evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree

[PeteF 1,044]

 

 

This is the folley of rental properties. You don't own that property and do not have an exclusive right to accessing it. Especially in this instance when there was an issue over a shared utility (aka the water heater).

 

The landlord as part of his duties has the right to access the premises, and he I imagine that includes allowing the police access. Especially if there was a complaint against the tenant regarding tampering with the water heater. The police wanted to respond to the complaint and investigate.

 

It's a 4th Amendment issue, but given the increasingly lax protections on that right, I wouldn't be surprised if the police were right to do what they did.

 

 

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

 

Do a search on

 

Nj rental law landlord entry

 

Get the 2 page pdf from the hud site.

Right_of_entry.pdf

 

READ IT. The part "access to property" spells it out.

 

 

[DevsAdvocate 112]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

 

Do a search on

 

Nj rental law landlord entry

 

Get the 2 page pdf from the hud site.

Right_of_entry.pdf

 

READ IT. The part "access to property" spells it out.

 

You mean this? http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/codes/publications/pdf_lti/right_of_entry.pdf

 

I think the police would be covered under this: . In case of emergencies where a condition exists that pose an immediate threat to the safety

or health of persons using or near the premises.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

You mean this? http://www.nj.gov/dc...ht_of_entry.pdf

 

I think the police would be covered under this: . In case of emergencies where a condition exists that pose an immediate threat to the safety

or health of persons using or near the premises.

Are the police part of the Bureau of Housing Inspection or an authorized representative?

[njpilot 671]

Well if the landlord allowed them access and they saw him with the gun then the first thing then becomes to secure the weapons and secure the scene. Not just because of officer safety but the possibility of collateral damage in an apartment complex. How did they know if he had more weapons . We're they in plain view? If so no warrant needed. Plain view is an exception. Once the rifle is found maybe the officer knew about firearms and realized it is illegal. A bayonet lug is not hard to spot. Everything else can be checked after e fact

 

According to the reports we've read, they didn't see him with the gun. The gun was in a zippered case, which he through on the bed. The one officer saw his movement and asked what that was.

 

Would there be PC to unzip the case and look inside if he tossed it on the bed? Shouldn't the officers just asked him to step out of the bedroom, into the living room?