Ok, I got some details straight from the horse's mouth today. Mike was in NJ on his way to NY to pick up some guns that he inherited from his uncle. A shotgun, a rifle, some ammo, and he had his own personal gun with him before hand; thus, 4 felonies (possession of ammo is a felony?? WTF?).

 

 

What?

 

How was he in possession of 4 guns if he was ON HIS WAY to pick up the guns he inherited?

 

This is starting to make less and less sense.

 

We still dont know what he was charged with, or why he was pulled over, arrested?

 

Was the gun he had loaded?

New Jersey doesn't charge you with felonies. We use 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th degree crimes. Maybe he was charged with a 4th degree crime? And he was entered into our PTI (pre trial intervention) program which puts you on probation. This is for first time non violent offenders.

Strange that this was done thru municipal court.

Strange that this was done thru municipal court.

 

Yes it is, wondering if it was a local law that was violated..

The lack of court docs, detailed charges, etc is frustrating. As others said, I'd like to know much more about this. I guess we'll find out soon.

I think the situation is pretty simple..

 

A) transporting guns THOUGHT NJ in a way that satisfies FOPA and was STILL arrested and charged... his lawyer is a FOOL.. and he is getting thrown under the bus..

 

B) there is FAR more to the story... guns in plain sight.. whatever..

 

IF the story is as presented.. cased up unloaded guns he legally owned transporting THROUGH NJ.. then he is a fool to do anything but fight it to the fullest..

Vlad, unfortunately I think it is the later of the two.

She consented to the search without a thought (probable cause is extremely questionable here), and the officer discovered the gun.

 

No probable cause is needed for a consent search. That's why its called "consent". Consent can be oral or in writing. Refusing to consent to a search does not establish probable cause.

 

It is also my understanding that in NJ if the police officer has to ask for permission to search you car then he doesn't have probable cause and the search may not stand up in court anyway. I could be wrong.

 

There are only a few ways a consent search doesn't stand up:

 

1. Consent is given by someone who deosn't have authority to give the consent. For example:

You have a locked box in your apartment and only you have a key. You are not

there and the police ask your room mate for consent to search the box. The

police break it open, find contraband, seize it, and arrest you later. What

was in the box can be surpressed as it was not a legal consent.

 

2. The defense can prove the person giving consent was coerced into doing so.

 

3. The person who gave the consent withdrew the consent and the police continued the search and found contraband.

 

Some agencies want their officers to get the consent in writing. If they fail to do so its violating a agency policy and does not make the search illegal.

 

Strange that this was done thru municipal court.

 

I'm not up on present practices but I've seen this done in the past when:

 

1. It was a lower level indictable offense normally heard at the county but

the defendant requested a hearing rather than a jury trial. Good idea it the

defense is a matter of law not of fact. In other words, admitting you did what

you did but what you did was legal.

 

2. The defendant is willing to plea guilty to a lesser crime. This includes a

PTI program. If there is no PTI and the defendant pleas guilty there is no

appeal of the verdict. The sentence may be appealed but this is usually worked

out beforehand.

 

Either way it helps clear the docket at the county level as they could never hear all the cases that go to it.

 

Did anyone say guilty during the proceedings? If so, your friend pled guilty to lesser charges. Going back on 11/17 would be the judge is waiting for the probation report before sentencing.

 

Maybe I missed it but when was he arrested?

Vlad, unfortunately I think it is the later of the two.

unfortunately it always is.. there have been several "cases" discussed here only to find out there were various "issues" that were left out on the first and second telling... and only came out at the very end.. OR didn't become public knowledge at all..

 

"my friend got arrested for an illegal weapon (gun) and he was just driving it back from a friends house where they were swapping stocks"

 

only to find out months later the gun was in plain view on the back seat uncased..

 

get screwed while doing the right thing.. and you have a forum full of people who will stand behind you.. get caught doing the wrong thing and fish for sympathy? you are better off looking elsewhere.. NOT saying anyone is guilty OR innocent.. we simply do not know enough about the situation..

 

my 2 cents at least..

get screwed while doing the right thing.. and you have a forum full of people who will stand behind you.. get caught doing the wrong thing and fish for sympathy? you are better off looking elsewhere.. NOT saying anyone is guilty OR innocent.. we simply do not know enough about the situation..

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. As responsible gun owners we need to take whatever steps are needed to comply with the law no matter how stupid the law may be. You need to be aware of the law wherever you are in order to maintain that responsibility. There is no sense to add another conviction for a firearms offense for the antis to throw in our face.

 

Strange that this was done thru municipal court.

 

I'm not up on present practices but I've seen this done in the past when:

 

1. It was a lower level indictable offense normally heard at the county but

the defendant requested a hearing rather than a jury trial. Good idea it the

defense is a matter of law not of fact. In other words, admitting you did what

you did but what you did was legal.

 

2. The defendant is willing to plea guilty to a lesser crime. This includes a

PTI program. If there is no PTI and the defendant pleas guilty there is no

appeal of the verdict. The sentence may be appealed but this is usually worked

out beforehand.

 

Either way it helps clear the docket at the county level as they could never hear all the cases that go to it.

 

Did anyone say guilty during the proceedings? If so, your friend pled guilty to lesser charges. Going back on 11/17 would be the judge is waiting for the probation report before sentencing.

 

Maybe I missed it but when was he arrested?

You were spot on as far as the search went Griz, however, if it is an Indictable Offense, it MUST go to the County Superior Court First. The County Prosecutor can downgrade an offense and send it to Municipal Court for disposition, however there HAS to be an appearance at CJP (Central Judicial Processing) which is basically an arraignment in County Superior Court.

Don't forget, his destination was NY, where you cannot be in possession of a handgun without a permit and you can't get a permit as a non-resident. The handgun was not legal at the destination, therefore, FOPA does not apply.

 

If he was charged with four "felonies," it is possible that they were:

Unlawful possession of a handgun

Possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose

Possession of high capacity magazines

Possession of hollow-nose bullets

Don't forget, his destination was NY, where you cannot be in possession of a handgun without a permit and you can't get a permit as a non-resident. The handgun was not legal at the destination, therefore, FOPA does not apply.

 

 

From the original post" "On his way home to upstate NY"

 

We do not know if he has a NY pistol license but he may be legal in NY, we don't have enough information.

Also from the post "Mike lives and operates his business in the Jupiter, Florida area."

Correct, he was on his way to NY to pick up the guns, apparently. So we have no clue, unless this was on his way back home?

In the OP he states:

Mike lives and operates his business in the Jupiter, Florida area. On his way home to upstate NY, he was stopped by police in Roxbury...

 

Later he states:

Mike was in NJ on his way to NY to pick up some guns that he inherited from his uncle.

 

If you consider both statements, it sounds like "on his way home" means where he is from, but now he is a resident of FL. That's what it sounds like to me.

There are a lot of people who have homes in NY/NJ and Florida, usually they are 50+ years old though. To bad the court documents or at least something, isn't available online.

I don't want to be the one to say it but could this be a troll? I hope not but nobody has been able to find anything about the case.

I don't want to be the one to say it but could this be a troll? I hope not but nobody has been able to find anything about the case.

 

 

sure.. but trolling for what..

 

 

all we are doing is having a hypothetical conversation about a "situation" that we have next to no information about..

 

give the facts of the situation and the correct outcome should be obvious..

types of weapons..

origin and end of travel..

method of transport..

legality of ownership..

 

till those questions are answered this thread is completely worthless.. and is just a bunch of chit chat..

I'm so torn with this thread.

 

I was born and raised in Jupiter. So, I'd hate to see my home town used like this, but...

 

This thread looks a bit like a time waster/troll. We asked for VERY specific information, but OP has came back with nary a detail. Of course, I can't blame OP for not pressing Mike's family for details on behalf of mildly curious strangers from the internet.

 

Also, a brief search reveals that Mike Zimmer is associated with Garden Depot (which has a place out in Jupiter Farms) and World Class Tree & Landscaping (never heard of them, but they exist in Jupiter). All the details seem to line up too well for it to be just a troll.

 

I think I just feel frustrated with how slowly details are coming out. I think that's my problem.

 

I'd love to help this guy out, it's something I completely believe in, but we need more info.

I would like to know WHAT led to the charges.. if he was driving through NJ.. and the gun was UNLOADED.. and inaccessible.. (per FOPA) he should really fight it to the end.. now if there are details we are unaware off (gun was loaded for example) then he should be thankful..

 

 

It is also my understanding that in NJ if the police officer has to ask for permission to search you car then he doesn't have probable cause and the search may not stand up in court anyway. I could be wrong.

 

I'm very curious, as the OP described what sounds like a consent search during a MV stop.

 

Which due to The state of NJ vs. Carty became a no-no in 2002.

 

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/state/state_supreme_nj_case1_comment1.shtml

I'm very curious, as the OP described what sounds like a consent search during a MV stop.

 

Which due to The state of NJ vs. Carty became a no-no in 2002.

 

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/state/state_supreme_nj_case1_comment1.shtml

 

Not always a no no. Read all of the court decision in NJ vs Carty. It puts a burden of reasonable suspicion on the police to do a consent search. It does not forbid them.

 

If Mr Zimmer pled guilty to lesser charges then all this conversation is academic as its over. All of this is speculation as we don't have all the facts.