Guy arrested in Jersey City for "Assault" weapon possession

[PeteF 1,044]

 

 

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.

 

Read post 138. Heating system malfunctioning. Problem reported and corrective action begun by landlord. Earliest repair was following Saturday. The landlord did all he could to remedy the problem.

 

NO EMERGENCY EXISTED.

 

Landlord has no reason to enter and can absolutely not give permission for leos to enter under these circumstances.

 

[Soju 153]

 

 

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.

 

Which makes it an illegal search. You seem to think that "probable cause" gives them the right to do whatever. It doesn't. If they have probable cause, that can get them a specific warrant. And then search within the terms of the warrant. Did they do even that? Doesn't seem like it. And not sure how having a firearm in ones own house is even probable cause...

 

I wonder if you even know what probable cause and reasonable suspicion means. You certainly have no idea what the 4th Amendment means...

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Read post 138. Heating system malfunctioning. Problem reported and corrective action begun by landlord. Earliest repair was following Saturday. The landlord did all he could to remedy the problem.

 

NO EMERGENCY EXISTED.

 

Landlord has no reason to enter and can absolutely not give permission for leos to enter under these circumstances.

 

Ahhhh, I get it now. What about rental agreements which allow land lord entry? In this instance, he had a legitimate need to enter and look at the heater.

[Soju 153]

 

Ahhhh, I get it now. What about rental agreements which allow land lord entry? In this instance, he had a legitimate need to enter and look at the heater.

 

Yes, allow the landlord to enter. Not the police.

[medic2264 11]

Questions:

Why did the police need to make entry when this is a civil matter between two tenants and or the landlord?

What was the emergent condition that required the landlord to make an emergent entrance to the apartment?

Once it was determined the renter was on premise, and contact was made with the renter, what was the criminal act that required the police to make entry?

Once the PD had the renter in custody, what was the PC, or exigent circumstances that allowed them to search for other weapons without a search warrant?

Why didn't the PD secure the apartment, and file for an emergent or telephonic search warrant?

Weren't there multiple contacts with the upstairs tenant and PD in the past?

How well written is the investigating officers reports?

 

Going from a $75000 cash/bond no 10% (2nd degree offense) to a ROR doesn't make the prosecutors case look very good, possibly some major issues with 4th amendment violations. It is very rare to see someone get an ROR on 2nd degree offense.

[kman 56]

Getting back to if this was a NJ illegal gun due to bayonet mount, etc, this is a great case to challenge the whole AWB. The banned features are totally irrelevant and irrational.

 

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Soju 153]

Getting back to if this was a NJ illegal gun due to bayonet mount, etc, this is a great case to challenge the whole AWB. The banned features are totally irrelevant and irrational.

 

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2

 

I'm not following. We know the features are irrelevant and irrational, but how is this a good case for that?

[PeteF 1,044]

 

Ahhhh, I get it now. What about rental agreements which allow land lord entry? In this instance, he had a legitimate need to enter and look at the heater.

 

It was broken, he knew that. He scheduled a repairman to come fix it. Was it going to be fixed by him looking at it? No. No emergency he needs to give at least 24 hour notice before entering.

 

What was done IS the definition of Illegal entry.

[PeteF 1,044]

Questions:

Why did the police need to make entry when this is a civil matter between two tenants and or the landlord?

What was the emergent condition that required the landlord to make an emergent entrance to the apartment?

Once it was determined the renter was on premise, and contact was made with the renter, what was the criminal act that required the police to make entry?

Once the PD had the renter in custody, what was the PC, or exigent circumstances that allowed them to search for other weapons without a search warrant?

Why didn't the PD secure the apartment, and file for an emergent or telephonic search warrant?

Weren't there multiple contacts with the upstairs tenant and PD in the past?

How well written is the investigating officers reports?

 

Going from a $75000 cash/bond no 10% (2nd degree offense) to a ROR doesn't make the prosecutors case look very good, possibly some major issues with 4th amendment violations. It is very rare to see someone get an ROR on 2nd degree offense.

 

Missed why was the renter taken into custody. Having a gun in your own house is not a crime, period, end of story. Pointing a gun at someone that invades your house is not a crime.

Yes they were cops but they had no LAWFUL reason to be in the house.

[JustJoe 0]

Excellent read, this thread.

I listened to the podcast and I didn't hear Nappen say:

--the guy is innocent

--the popo had no business going in

-- it was an illegal search and siezure

-- all the stuff was NJ legal

--we'll mount a vigorous defense

 

That may very well be the case and I hope it is. But I'm just saying.....

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Excellent read, this thread.

I listened to the podcast and I didn't hear Nappen say:

--the guy is innocent

--the popo had no business going in

-- it was an illegal search and siezure

-- all the stuff was NJ legal

--we'll mount a vigorous defense

 

That may very well be the case and I hope it is. But I'm just saying.....

 

And he would never say anything like that.. He has a client to protect, the details are between him and his client ... You don't show the prosecution your hand when you're in a vulnerable position, and you never disclose your defense.. He didn't say he was guilty, the popo had a right to enter, the search was legal, or how he would proceed with the defense... Nappen IS representing him, which mean he has faith in the case and that's good enough for me... he's not some criminal case lawyer...

[djg0770 481]

Excellent read, this thread.

I listened to the podcast and I didn't hear Nappen say:

--the guy is innocent

--the popo had no business going in

-- it was an illegal search and siezure

-- all the stuff was NJ legal

--we'll mount a vigorous defense

 

That may very well be the case and I hope it is. But I'm just saying.....

 

When you play poker, do you tell all the spectators what cards you have in your hand?

[djg0770 481]

Nice Jackdawack - we simulposted the almost exact same thought.

[bulpup 98]

Forgive me for coming on late to this thread, but isn't no heat in the winter considered different than "a problem with a utility?"

 

Perhaps Iam thinking in terms of my NY rentals, but if the heat is out in the winter you can indeed call an agency that will send police to gain entry.

 

I have no idea if that applies here, but it is the first thing I thought of.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Nice Jackdawack - we simulposted the almost exact same thought.

 

lol.. i think it should be apparent to everyone that facts play only half the role in a court room, how you use those facts is the other half.. You buy the best lawyer you can for a reason, it's all a big game, otherwise, simply representing yourself would suffice.

[Wile E Coyote 0]

Forgive me for coming on late to this thread, but isn't no heat in the winter considered different than "a problem with a utility?"

 

Perhaps Iam thinking in terms of my NY rentals, but if the heat is out in the winter you can indeed call an agency that will send police to gain entry.

 

I have no idea if that applies here, but it is the first thing I thought of.

 

Gain entry to what end? I'd assume to let a repairman in.

 

In this case there was no repairman let into the apartment. Unless one of the cops happened to a plumber and had his tools with him, I'm not exactly sure what they were trying to accomplish by going inside.

[djg0770 481]

I'm not exactly sure what they were trying to accomplish by going inside.

 

They were attempting to appease the wacko upstairs neighbor...

[Pythagoras 2]

They were attempting to appease the wacko upstairs neighbor...

 

As we all know, "appeasing the neighbor" does not make it okay to violate constitutional rights. If I carry openly in my backyard (fenced at the property line) and my neighbor sees a gun on my hip she might call the cops because "ZOMG it's a gun!"...but that doesn't mean a cop can show up and come inside my house or even ask to see FPID because it's my private property.

 

Others have said it: the presence of a firearm on private land does NOT constitute probable cause for a search. Officer safety be damned, this is private property.

[bulpup 98]

 

Gain entry to what end? I'd assume to let a repairman in .

 

Well we don't have all of the information on what happened and why, but having no heat in the winter is in fact considered a sort of emergency( I checked).

 

This can bring Department of Housing Enforcement and inspectors to your door via their 24 hour hotline.

 

No mention if the cops were inspectors or if there was one present, or even if that is why they were there, but that would be at least a sliver of an idea of why the cops might feel justified to enter where the heater was.

 

http://tlinexile.blogspot.com/2013/02/update-on-keith-pantaleon.html?m=1

 

"The charges are unlawful possession of my 2 handguns, unlawful possession of my rifle, unlawful possession of my ammo and felony possession of an assault rifle. The cops claimed the third floor tenant called because he did not have heat in his apt, and the boiler just happened to be in my apartment."

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JackDaWack 2,895]

felony possession of an assault rifle?

[medic2264 11]

NJ doesn't have felonies and misdemeanors. We have indictable (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th degree crimes), and non-indictable (disorderly persons and petty disorderly persons offenses). Indictable crimes are handled @ the Superior Court level. Disorderly persons and petty disorderly persons are handled at the Municipal court level

[medic2264 11]

2C:39-5.f Unlawful possession of a weapon (Assault Firearms) 3rd degree offense

[kman 56]

 

I'm not following. We know the features are irrelevant and irrational, but how is this a good case for that?

 

Where a constitutional right is affected, the law is that there has to be a good reason to criminalize something, some sort of compelling interest beyond just a legislature say-so. Prison for a pistol grip and bayonet mount? This is a good case to challenge the constitutionality of NJs irrational AWB and appeal it all the way. What argument can they make that a ban on grip shape is rational?

 

What you need to challenge the law is a prosecution so real prison is being threatened for an otherwise law abiding person. In the absence of any bayonet crime, the argument for banning them is very flimsy and difficult for a prosecutor to argue to an appeals court.

 

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Soju 153]

Yes yes, I get your point. I'm am just not sure what makes this case such a good one, and any different from it's application to anyone else, ever.

[Anselmo 87]

The NJ AWB was the law of the nation for 10 years not that long ago. I'd assume the Constitutionality of the law would have been tested years ago.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

2C:39-5.f Unlawful possession of a weapon (Assault Firearms) 3rd degree offense

 

Yeah, that would be the unlawful possession of the rifle, i dunno why he said he was charged twice AND labeled it felony.

[TK421 2]

The NJ AWB was the law of the nation for 10 years not that long ago. I'd assume the Constitutionality of the law would have been tested years ago.

 

But Heller established that the 2nd amendment was an individual right after the federal AWB expired, that was indeed a game changer. Prior to that there was open debate as to the collective vs. individual theories. Between Heller, McDonald and Miller it is really hard to argue the constitutionality of assault weapon and magazine capacity bans.

[KpdPipes 388]

Yeah, that would be the unlawful possession of the rifle, i dunno why he said he was charged twice AND labeled it felony.

 

Because newsies suck and dont give a damn about getting details accurate?

[KpdPipes 388]

But Heller established that the 2nd amendment was an individual right after the federal AWB expired, that was indeed a game changer. Prior to that there was open debate as to the collective vs. individual theories. Between Heller, McDonald and Miller it is really hard to argue the constitutionality of assault weapon and magazine capacity bans.

 

Actually after Heller and McDonald, the entire Chapter of 2C relating to weapons is invalid because of the wording...the PROBLEM is finding someone with pockets deep enough to Fight it. Remember 2C:39 prohibits ALL FIREARMS FIRST, then goes into the exceptions to that prohibition.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

The NJ AWB was the law of the nation for 10 years not that long ago. I'd assume the Constitutionality of the law would have been tested years ago.

 

It wasn't though. I don't think any of the State AWBs were tried in the Supreme Court. The NJ AWB went in front of the State Superior Court in 1996 which gave us the "evil features" list, but it hasn't been tested since then.