voldemort at it again

[mikegideon]

Mike,

 

That is just plain silly, how can you threaten somebody with a rifle slung on your back?  Just because you have an over reaction to something somebody does doesn't mean you were threatened.

 

Giving Lenny's actions any credibility is just plain silly. They are not going to go into the deep study in case law for this whack job, and Lenny doesn't have the resources to push it. It's obvious to anybody with a brain.

 

Now... watch what happens.

Edited August 1, 2013 by mikegideon

[JayC]

We'll have to wait until the evidence list is posted to know for sure...  but so far everything that Leonard has said has proven to be correct, he is claiming that the paperwork was in the case with the firearm.

 

And frankly I'm not sure the state can demand to see the paperwork on NFA items legally...  I remember reading somewhere that NFA stamps are considered tax records, and federal law prevents the states from having access to federal tax records without a court order.  But, I might be wrong on that.

 

I thought that fact was in dispute.

[mikegideon]

Evidence list  :rofl:

[Guest nra37922]

Either its a shame, or I'm glad, that Lenny isn't black.

[Chucktshoes]

Either its a shame, or I'm glad, that Lenny isn't black.

That could certainly lead to some interesting bedfellows. :lol:

[TripleDigitRide]

Mike,

That is just plain silly, how can you threaten somebody with a rifle slung on your back? Just because you have an over reaction to something somebody does doesn't mean you were threatened.

Giving Lenny's actions any credibility is just plain silly. They are not going to go into the deep study in case law for this whack job, and Lenny doesn't have the resources to push it. It's obvious to anybody with a brain.

Now... watch what happens.

Yeah, representing himself has been his biggest mistake, in my humble opinion. That does show a touch of narcissism.

[mikegideon]

Yeah, representing himself has been his biggest mistake, in my humble opinion. That does show a touch of narcissism.

 

Touch? Eaten up with it. 

[Oh Shoot]

Well I'm still on the fence on whether or not they acted wrongly. It is a matter of opinion right now that the case shaped like a loaded AR15 combined with his wearing of body armor didn't give them PC to determine if it was in fact loaded....

 

I myself don't get all the Probable Cause arguments. Forget the body armor for a moment and just consider the appearance of a firearm alone.

 

It's illegal to have a loaded gun on your person in this state. If you have an HCP, you have a defense to carry a loaded handgun. If a LEO sees the handgun, he can ask you to see the permit. If you don't have one, seems he would also have PC to check and see if the gun is loaded, to see whether he should charge you.

 

There is no such defense for a loaded long gun on your person, so when a LEO sees one, or what likely appears to be one, how does he not have the same Probable Cause to inspect it?

 

I don't see where a case, regardless of how it is shaped, figures into it at all. Indeed, the TN statute only gives an out for "an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon". Indeed, having it in a case that visually and logically implies that it contains a long gun might be interpreted as "concealed"? Or perhaps a case that does not imply "long gun" is "concealed" (but would be problematic for Probable Cause).

 

Point is, though, by what interpretation of 39-17-1307 and 1308 did the LEO not have the full authority to check out the firearm, especially since the case itself screamed AR-15?

 

I suppose a locked case presents another particular set of legal parameters, but in this case it was not locked (and I don't believe gaffer tape could possibly be construed to be so). And "locking" the firearm itself, well, dunno about that, but here they did not defeat that lock anyway.

 

So certainly seems there was every reason to legally detain him until they could look in that chamber. The fact they arrested him for the can seems to be the only problematic part to me, especially if indeed the paperwork was right there in the case plainly visible, whether Lenny ever drew their attention to it or not.

 

- OS

Edited August 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

rats, meant to edit not quote

 

Edited August 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

The issue is what specific probable cause do you have to think the rifle is loaded?   Unlike with an HCP everybody who can legally own a firearm can carry it around unloaded, so an officer would need probable cause that this one rifle was loaded.

 

The 'locked' container is another problem for the search as well, there was a lock on the outside of the case, you can see that from media screencaps, and it was cased in such a way as it was impossible to determine if the chamber was empty without destroying the lock.  I don't think the fact the case wasn't super sturdy factors into whether the owner attempted to protect the item(s) inside the case by locking it.

 

A perfect example, of this, if you had an old laptop backpack that had a rip in the side, and you tried to mend that backpack with tape, then proceeded to lock the bag to prevent something from opening the bag up...  does the fact that there is some tape negate the lock completely?  Or lets say you're using a cheap plastic handgun case, that is locked, and somebody comes by and pry's the corner up enough to see a handgun in the case, does that mean it wasn't locked?  Of course not...  

 

Also, we now know exactly what the listed probable cause was from the officers police report, and it's complete bunk...  Can you blindly pick up a cased rifle and tell from the weight whether it was loaded or not?  Can anybody?  I'd love to hear what training the officer had that allowed him with any degree of certainty to pick up an unknow model firearm and tell from the weight alone if it was loaded or not.

 

And remember that simple PC does not equal a legal search, the police had full possession of the cased firearm, it was well out of reach of a suspect that was fully complying with all orders of the police officers in question...  What was the exigent circumstance that prevented them from getting a warrant before searching the case?  There was no risk to the public by the time they had the case.  Nothing was stopping them from sitting there for 30 more minutes waiting on a court order to open the case.  So anyway you cut it, the search was bad.

 

Then you come to the arrest, here is where Leonard made a critical mistake, by having that NFA item on the firearm it gave them an excuse to arrest him...  well except for the paperwork he claims was in the case with the firearm...  if that turns out to be true then how did they not become aware of the paperwork before he was booked?  I'm willing to bet we find out that the paperwork was documented right along side the firearm and the arrest becomes bad as well.

 

None of the douchebag actions that Leonard did that day excuse police officers of violating his rights and not following the constitution...  Arguing that they stepped over the line is not some show of support for Leonards actions, only a lack of support for overzealous actions on the part of the police officers who performed the search and arrest.

 

I myself don't get all the Probable Cause arguments. Forget the body armor for a moment and just consider what was pretty

 

It's illegal to have a loaded gun on your person in this state. If you have an HCP, you have a defense to carry a loaded handgun. If a LEO sees the handgun, he can ask you to see the permit. If you don't have one, seems he would also have PC to check and see if the gun is loaded, to see whether he should charge you.

 

There is no such defense for a loaded long gun on your person, so when a LEO sees one, or what likely appears to be one, how does he not have the same Probable Cause to inspect it?

 

I don't see where a case, regardless of how it is shaped, figures into it at all. Indeed, the TN statute only gives an out for "an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon". Indeed, having it in a case that visually and logically implies that it contains a long gun might be interpreted as "concealed"? Or perhaps a case that does not imply "long gun" is "concealed" (but would be problematic for Probable Cause).

 

Point is, though, by what interpretation of 39-17-1307 and 1308 did the LEO not have the full authority to check out the firearm, especially since the case itself screamed AR-15?

 

I suppose a locked case presents another particular set of legal parameters, but in this case it was not locked (and I don't believe gaffer tape could possibly be construed to be so). And "locking" the firearm itself, well, dunno about that, but here they did not broach that lock anyway.

 

So certainly seems there was every reason to legally detain him until they could look in that chamber. The fact that arrested him for the can seems to be the only problematic part to me, if indeed the paperwork was right there in the case plainly visible, whether Lenny ever drew their attention to it or not.

 

- OS

Edited August 1, 2013 by JayC

[RobertNashville]

The issue is what specific probable cause do you have to think the rifle is loaded?

 

I think you are stretching here.

 

Under TN law no one is allowed to carry a loaded long gun in public (or what is easily/obviously construed to be a long gun such as in this case). Had the idiot been walking down a country road cops probably wouldn't bother to stop and may not even notice at all but, on a city street they damn sure are going to notice (even if there weren't 911 calls) and they are going to ascertain if the weapon is or isn't loaded.

 

Making that determination is not only reasonable and prudent but given what has been happening in recent memory the cops would be derelict in their duty if they didn't see if the weapon is loaded - we can dislike the law that says carrying a loaded long gun in public is a crime...we can dislike that sort of "automatic" suspicion of him carrying a loaded AR but let's face it, walking down the sidewalk of a major city street in this day and age with a rifle is simply NOT normal and hasn't been normal for a VERY long time now (even were it legal)...couple that with the rest of his appearance and recent history of shootings and heaven help any cop that doesn't stop him and search him and his belongings just as these cops did.

Since it is illegal for anyone to carry a loaded long gun in public and given that the person carrying it was being totally uncooperative I believe they had plenty of probable cause at that point to suspect that a crime was being committed (carrying a loaded long gun) which gives them more than sufficient permission to search even the "case".

 

Ultimately this will (maybe anyway) play out in the courts but I don't think these cops have a "PC" problem here.
 

Edited August 1, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

People have suggested if he had just told the police the weapon wasn't loaded, opened the case up and allowed the to inspect his firearm to verify that, and shown them the NFA paperwork he wouldn't have been arrested...  There is a real problem with that line of thinking.

What’s the problem with it; it’s a common sense line of thinking.

Possession of a silencer is a crime in this state. A valid defense to that charge is that you are a validly registered owner under federal law in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records. You are also required to retain proof of that registration. Invoking the 5th is not a valid response.

Let him turn this into a “letter of the law” battle. We will see how it turns out.

[DaveTN]

Either its a shame, or I'm glad, that Lenny isn't black.

 
 

That could certainly lead to some interesting bedfellows. :lol:

You know that’s what got him started don’t you? He was infatuated with the guy in Virginia that got a nuisance suit settlement for $10K because he had been stopped several times while carrying. The guy claimed he was being stopped for “Carrying while black”. Lenny decided he wanted the same fame. Lenny forgot one small detail.

[JayC]

Nobody is saying they couldn't perform a terry stop and have a conversation with him....  You have to separate the stop to ask him some questions and see what is going on, and the search of the rifle case.

 

I haven't seen anybody argue that legally they couldn't walk up to the guy and ask him what is going on...  so stop bringing that fact up, we all agree stopping him was perfectly within current case law (I'm happy to have a separate discussion on how terry v ohio is horrible case law and should be overturned, but that topic is for another time and place).

 

The issue some of us have is with the search of a locked case that was no longer within arms reach of Leonard, and the arrest because Leonard claimed they had the paperwork in their possession before he was arrested.

 

Just because something is not normal doesn't give police the ability to even stop you, let alone probable cause to search you, let alone search a locked case that is no longer in your possession without a warrant.

 

And, you also overlook that there were 2 different police encounters within a 10 to 15 minute span...  In the first encounter 10+ officers let Leonard go, he was wearing the exact same kevlar vest, and carrying the exact same gun case...  And then the second encounter that we've all seen the video tape of...  between those two encounters he did an interview with a TV reporter...

 

So I agree the context of the situation matters.  So lets talk about the context of this situation...  maybe a man wearing body armor and a gun case isn't normal, but once you stop that person have a conversation and LET THEM GO... and you see the exact same person 15 minutes later doing walking in the same general area how do you suddenly get probable cause that he is now committing a crime?

 

So which is it, the first group of 10-15 officers all got it wrong, and should be disciplined for letting a possible madman walk around downtown Nashville?  Or the second group (which included a number of the first group) got it wrong for seeing the exact same person released 10 minutes ago (who you've just watched have an interview with a local TV reporter) is suddenly a person about the go on a shooting spree?

 

One group of officers got it completely wrong...  which one is it?

 

I think you are stretching here.

 

Under TN law no one is allowed to carry a loaded long gun in public (or what is easily/obviously construed to be a long gun such as in this case). Had the idiot been walking down a country road cops probably wouldn't bother to stop and may not even notice at all but, on a city street they damn sure are going to notice (even if there weren't 911 calls) and they are going to ascertain if the weapon is or isn't loaded.

 

Making that determination is not only reasonable and prudent but given what has been happening in recent memory the cops would be derelict in their duty if they didn't see if the weapon is loaded - we can dislike the law that says carrying a loaded long gun in public is a crime...we can dislike that sort of "automatic" suspicion of him carrying a loaded AR but let's face it, walking down the sidewalk of a major city street in this day and age with a rifle is simply NOT normal and hasn't been normal for a VERY long time now (even were it legal)...couple that with the rest of his appearance and recent history of shootings and heaven help any cop that doesn't stop him and search him and his belongings just as these cops did.

Since it is illegal for anyone to carry a loaded long gun in public and given that the person carrying it was being totally uncooperative I believe they had plenty of probable cause at that point to suspect that a crime was being committed (carrying a loaded long gun) which gives them more than sufficient permission to search even the "case".

 

Ultimately this will (maybe anyway) play out in the courts but I don't think these cops have a "PC" problem here.
 

 

[c.a.willard]

jayC     to speak specifically towards your probable cause argument it is easily argued that the case due to its form fitting nature made it appear as if it contained a AR-15 pattern rifle with a magazine inserted.  It also had the appropriate weight to be containing an actual rifle.  Given Mr Embodies attire at the time and his general demeanor a reasonable person would believe that the rifle contained in the case was most probably loaded  the search was initially limited to determine solely if the weapon was clear.  at that point they noticed the suppressor that mr Embody would not provide paperwork for.

 

You could also make a weak plain view argument.  As it appeared from the outside of the case that it contained an AR-15 pattern rifle with an inserted magazine.

 

Of equal importance is that the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches.  There was nothing unreasonable about the officers searching

[Oh Shoot]

The issue is what specific probable cause do you have to think the rifle is loaded?   Unlike with an HCP everybody who can legally own a firearm can carry it around unloaded, so an officer would need probable cause that this one rifle was loaded.

 

Doesn't make any sense to me there. You can OC a pistol unloaded too. But a LEO has every right to 1-see if you have an HCP and 2-if you don't, to check if the pistol is loaded.

 

I'd say jurisprudence would reason that the fact that TN law begins with the premise that it is illegal to carry around a loaded firearm of any type in public is justification enough to check any of them for their status.

 

I'm still unclear about the lock thing, but really not even sure it matters if what it locks is reasonably inferred to be a firearm carried around on the person, as there is no exception for a loaded firearm in a locked case on the person. Seems to me would have to be challenged on federal constitutional basis, not on state constitution or statutes. Whatever those precedents actually are.

 

- OS

Edited August 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

The issue some of us have is with the search of a locked case that was no longer within arms reach of Leonard, and the arrest because Leonard claimed they had the paperwork in their possession before he was arrested.

Whose legal duty do you think it is to make sure they see that paperwork?

[RobertNashville]

Nobody is saying they couldn't perform a terry stop and have a conversation with him....  You have to separate the stop to ask him some questions and see what is going on, and the search of the rifle case.

 

I haven't seen anybody argue that legally they couldn't walk up to the guy and ask him what is going on...  so stop bringing that fact up, we all agree stopping him was perfectly within current case law (I'm happy to have a separate discussion on how terry v ohio is horrible case law and should be overturned, but that topic is for another time and place).

 

The issue some of us have is with the search of a locked case that was no longer within arms reach of Leonard, and the arrest because Leonard claimed they had the paperwork in their possession before he was arrested.

 

Just because something is not normal doesn't give police the ability to even stop you, let alone probable cause to search you, let alone search a locked case that is no longer in your possession without a warrant.

 

And, you also overlook that there were 2 different police encounters within a 10 to 15 minute span...  In the first encounter 10+ officers let Leonard go, he was wearing the exact same kevlar vest, and carrying the exact same gun case...  And then the second encounter that we've all seen the video tape of...  between those two encounters he did an interview with a TV reporter...

 

So I agree the context of the situation matters.  So lets talk about the context of this situation...  maybe a man wearing body armor and a gun case isn't normal, but once you stop that person have a conversation and LET THEM GO... and you see the exact same person 15 minutes later doing walking in the same general area how do you suddenly get probable cause that he is now committing a crime?

 

So which is it, the first group of 10-15 officers all got it wrong, and should be disciplined for letting a possible madman walk around downtown Nashville?  Or the second group (which included a number of the first group) got it wrong for seeing the exact same person released 10 minutes ago (who you've just watched have an interview with a local TV reporter) is suddenly a person about the go on a shooting spree?

 

One group of officers got it completely wrong...  which one is it?

Sorry...don't buy it.  Carrying a loaded rifle in Tennessee in public is illegal. Having one on a city street (even ignoring everything else) provided more than enough suspicion that a crime was, is or about to be committed.

 

The police had not only a right but an obligation to find out for certain if the rifle is loaded or not.  Their suspicions that is was loaded is wholly logical and prudent and more than sufficient, in my layman's opinion, to provide probable cause to search the "case".  And that's the way it should be, at least until sometime in the future if that law is ever changed...I'm not sure what that is causing anyone heartburn.

 

If you want to keep believing that the police were wrong that's fine but nothing anyone has said gives me cause to believe their search wasn't completely legal.

[RobertNashville]

Of equal importance is that the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches.  There was nothing unreasonable about the officers searching

Excellent point...some stretch the 4th amendment from protection against unreasonable searches to protection against virtually all searches and, as you just pointed out, such is not the case.  I'm not a judge but I see nothing unreasonable in the police searching his cased weapon. In fact, under the totality of the circumstances it would have bee wholly unreasonable for them to not have done so!

[RichardR]

Robert did you completely ignore every single thing that Jay's posted? Or just the vast majority of it?

Egads man, please re-read Jay's posts again, he describes exactly how the process is supposed to work & exactly how it was mishandled.

[mikegideon]

Robert did you completely ignore every single thing that Jay's posted? Or just the vast majority of it?

Egads man, please re-read Jay's posts again, he describes exactly how the process is supposed to work & exactly how it was mishandled.

 

Leonard won't get squat out of this. Jay explained, in excruciating detail, how HE thinks it should work. Now... watch what actually happens.

[c.a.willard]

I hope no one takes this the wrong way but i have a suspicion that the same people who are saying the cops should have waited and gotten a warrant for the case, would be screaming about detaining mr embody for several hours on the side of a busy rd in in downtown nashville if they had actually gone that route.  Some people you just cant please.

 

 

The officers did what was reasonable and prudent given the circumstances for the situation. 

[Fourtyfive]

As I see it ....

No laws were broken...

An Illegal search happened...... Definetly in my eyes.......

Take it from there....... Edited August 2, 2013 by Threeeighty

[JayC]

Was this search illegal?  Only a judge can say for sure...  

 

Lets quote a FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers) manual on searches of locked containers:

 

The law enforcement officer should always remember that the courts will look upon any search conducted without a warrant with suspicion.  When a warrant or consent is not obtainable there are few justifications for opening a locked container.  These justifications are limited to containers encountered during an inventory search and those within an arrestee’s immediate control. Otherwise, it is probably best to refrain from opening the locked container.

 

The search in question was not an inventory search, nor an arrestee's search (because Leonard had not been placed under arrest until after the search had begun).

 

That doesn't mean the search is automatically illegal, but it's questionable at best because it breaks standard law enforcement procedures.

 

More importantly, there is a critical logical flaw in the incident that the police are going to have to overcome...    You have 10-15 officers who confront Leonard and let him go with no search, then 10-15 minutes later after giving an interview with a local reporter (who clearly wasn't too scared to go up to a man carrying a firearm and strike up a conversation with him), he is stopped a second time by a second group of officers some of which were involved in the first encounter....

 

So one of these situations had to occur for the second encounter to have been lawful...  

 

1. The first group of officers had probable cause to believe that Leonard was a threat to the public and was walking around downtown with a loaded firearm, and then proceeded to let him go and endanger the public for another 10-15 minutes.

 

2. Something happened to create probable cause after the first encounter that allowed the second encounter to happen and a search conducted with no warrant based on this NEW probable cause.

 

So which is it? You have a group of officers including supervisors who let a man they believed to be breaking the law to roam around downtown for 10-15 minutes?  OR Leonard did something after the first encounter that legitimately created new probable cause that he was committing a crime.

 

It's got to be 1 or 2, which is it?

 

Sorry...don't buy it.  Carrying a loaded rifle in Tennessee in public is illegal. Having one on a city street (even ignoring everything else) provided more than enough suspicion that a crime was, is or about to be committed.

 

The police had not only a right but an obligation to find out for certain if the rifle is loaded or not.  Their suspicions that is was loaded is wholly logical and prudent and more than sufficient, in my layman's opinion, to provide probable cause to search the "case".  And that's the way it should be, at least until sometime in the future if that law is ever changed...I'm not sure what that is causing anyone heartburn.

 

If you want to keep believing that the police were wrong that's fine but nothing anyone has said gives me cause to believe their search wasn't completely legal.

Edited August 2, 2013 by JayC

[c.a.willard]

How well that container is locked plays a major role in determining the legality of the search itself.  There is specific case law that addresses the nature of locked containers and the test for searching them is officers can not search containers so well sealed that a weapon could not be obtained.  This case from looking at the pictures on Voldemort's website clearly show that you can still gain access to the weapon by separating the kydex even if it is locked.