Road rage arrest with firearms ammo seized

[CAshooter]

https://ktla.com/news/california/chp-road-rage-suspect-illegal-guns/

 

[DudeFromTheWest]

As pro gun as I come. The dude who was arrested is an absolute moron, who should not be owning anything to start with.

 

[lactoast]

This dude was sitting on an absolute monstrous cache of illegal goodies, and he blew it all away over something as stupid as road rage. I guess it's a good thing he got taken in before he actually went and shot someone

 

[miles888]

How did road rage turn into his house getting searched?

 

[Gawernator]

One of the few times all the anti gun laws actually do a net positive. He's gonna get a few years at least

 

[Hit Factor]

As pro gun as I come. The dude who was arrested is an absolute moron, who should not be owning anything to start with.

Not even the Bucket O’ Bullets they booked into evidence?

 

[RickD427]

How did road rage turn into his house getting searched?

The media reports didn't go into enough detail to know the answer, but it would appear that the nice CHP officers likely acted under Penal Code sections 1524(a)(14) and 18125.

 

[CAshooter]

How did road rage turn into his house getting searched?

During the road rage in mid-July he pointed a gun at the victim - a felony. Victim got the license plate. They don’t say how, but they identified the suspect. They were most likely following him and stopped him while he was driving on August 4th and arrested him. The investigators got a search warrant for his house and searched it later the day that he was arrested. That’s when they found all the guns and ammo. They’ll add all the weapons charges on top of the original felony.

 

[ar15robert]

Years ago some said I don’t need to register my sb23 gun as a raw. Sure might be fine shooting remotely here and there but the stupidest thing gets you caught.

A domestic violence call a rod rage incident a threat etc and your toasted.

 

[lactoast]

During the road rage in mid-July he pointed a gun at the victim - a felony. Victim got the license plate. They don’t say how, but they identified the suspect. They were most likely following him and stopped him while he was driving on August 4th and arrested him. The investigators got a search warrant for his house and searched it later the day that he was arrested. That’s when they found all the guns and ammo. They’ll add all the weapons charges on top of the original felony.

I assume he was asking about how the guy's arrest led to a search warrant of his home, which @RickD427 answered quite nicely with what's likely the relevant penal code

Unless of course he didn't read the article at all, in which case, good summary

 

[9Cal_OC]

During the road rage in mid-July he pointed a gun at the victim - a felony. Victim got the license plate. They don’t say how, but they identified the suspect. They were most likely following him and stopped him while he was driving on August 4th and arrested him. The investigators got a search warrant for his house and searched it later the day that he was arrested. That’s when they found all the guns and ammo. They’ll add all the weapons charges on top of the original felony.

What’s to stop someone from just claiming someone pointed a gun at them during a road rage incident and the other driver just happened to be a CCW licensee and no such gun was drawn…

 

[RickD427]

What’s to stop someone from just claiming someone pointed a gun at them during a road rage incident and the other driver just happened to be a CCW licensee and no such gun was drawn…

It happens, and more often than you might think. The first line of defense is an officer with good "street sense." You would not believe how often folks try to co-opt us into taking enforcement action against their adversaries. I can't count how many times I've pursued charges of "False Reporting" against a purported victim who tried that (stuff). The second line of defense is the judge who reviews the Affidavit in Support of the Search Warrant. The officer has to convince the judge that there is sufficient "Probable Cause" to issue the warrant. The third line of defense is the nice Filing Deputy at the D.A.'s office. If there's not a meritorious case, it ain't getting filed. The fourth line of defense is the trial judge. The judge is gonna rule on the inevitable PC 995 motion if the case is weak. The fifth line of defense is the jury.

 

[CAshooter]

I assume he was asking about how the guy's arrest led to a search warrant of his home, which @RickD427 answered quite nicely with what's likely the relevant penal code

Unless of course he didn't read the article at all, in which case, good

It makes sense that if a guy who was waving a gun around in public gets arrested that the police would check to see if he has firearms registered to him or find out if he’s a prohibited person. Don’t know about the first part. According to the charges in the article, it don’t say anything about a felon in possession. Just unlawful possession.

I didn’t initially recognize the penal codes RickD427 provided and didn’t look them up until 5 minutes ago. They are related to search warrants for someone who is the restrained party of a Gun Violence Restraining Order. The article says nothing about the suspect being restrained or otherwise prohibited from owning firearms. He might be, he might not. Maybe it hasn’t been released yet. But it’s been my experience that when someone who shouldn’t possess a firearm does something stupid with a firearm and gets arrested, the news is pretty consistent with reporting it. I am not a lawyer and realize that is anecdotal evidence only.

 

[CAshooter]

What’s to stop someone from just claiming someone pointed a gun at them during a road rage incident and the other driver just happened to be a CCW licensee and no such gun was drawn…

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Hopefully, during the investigation, the cops/investigators have enough experience to detect the bull. See RickD247’s first line of defense above, as well as his other great points. I would only add to say nothing nut “lawyer” to any and all cops that try to question you.

 

[Gawernator]

It happens, and more often than you might think. The first line of defense is an officer with good "street sense." You would not believe how often folks try to co-opt us into taking enforcement action against their adversaries. I can't count how many times I've pursued charges of "False Reporting" against a purported victim who tried that (stuff). The second line of defense is the judge who reviews the Affidavit in Support of the Search Warrant. The officer has to convince the judge that there is sufficient "Probable Cause" to issue the warrant. The third line of defense is the nice Filing Deputy at the D.A.'s office. If there's not a meritorious case, it ain't getting filed. The fourth line of defense is the trial judge. The judge is gonna rule on the inevitable PC 995 motion if the case is weak. The fifth line of defense is the jury.

Man, that reminds me of a subpoena I served about six months ago, where the homeowner lied about who he was and I didn’t buy it, then he was cussing me out walking across the lawn and his wife came out and called the cops on me. Not sure what she claimed but I did nothing wrong obviously and I recorded the entire process, so they can’t claim they were never served.

I make it about 5 minutes away to the freeway on ramp and PD pulls me over. He checked me out and nothing came of it other than wasting 5-10 minutes of my life. Not sure what the lady claimed to get 911 sent to me but I wish people like her actually got charges for false statements or false police report.

 

[RickD427]

It makes sense that if a guy who was waving a gun around in public gets arrested that the police would check to see if he has firearms registered to him or find out if he’s a prohibited person. Don’t know about the first part. According to the charges in the article, it don’t say anything about a felon in possession. Just unlawful possession.

I didn’t initially recognize the penal codes RickD427 provided and didn’t look them up until 5 minutes ago. They are related to search warrants for someone who is the restrained party of a Gun Violence Restraining Order. The article says nothing about the suspect being restrained or otherwise prohibited from owning firearms. He might be, he might not. Maybe it hasn’t been released yet. But it’s been my experience that when someone who shouldn’t possess a firearm does something stupid with a firearm and gets arrested, the news is pretty consistent with reporting it. I am not a lawyer and realize that is anecdotal evidence only.

I would see it working like this, and I'm making some assumptions here because I don't see all of the facts being reported in the media:

1) The suspect was reportedly engaged in a "Road Rage" incident involving a firearm.

2) The nice CHP officers stop the suspect and discover a firearm, which supports the veracity of the initial report. The media reports are silent on the next point, but I assume that the nice officers would check AFS for records of additional firearms associated with the suspect.

3) The conduct, coupled with the likely possession (keep in mind that AFS does not track possession) of additional firearms support the issuance of a "Emergency Gun Violence Restraining Order." The nice CHP officer have standing to seek such an order.

4) Once the order is issued by the judge, and the suspect remains in custody (and therefore unable to personally surrender his remaining firearms) the nice officers have standing to secure a Search Warrant to recover any additional firearms.

 

[9Cal_OC]

It happens, and more often than you might think. The first line of defense is an officer with good "street sense." You would not believe how often folks try to co-opt us into taking enforcement action against their adversaries. I can't count how many times I've pursued charges of "False Reporting" against a purported victim who tried that (stuff). The second line of defense is the judge who reviews the Affidavit in Support of the Search Warrant. The officer has to convince the judge that there is sufficient "Probable Cause" to issue the warrant. The third line of defense is the nice Filing Deputy at the D.A.'s office. If there's not a meritorious case, it ain't getting filed. The fourth line of defense is the trial judge. The judge is gonna rule on the inevitable PC 995 motion if the case is weak. The fifth line of defense is the jury.

Thanks for the insight
I’ve always wondered this as anyone can make claims such as this just to cause someone to have a bad day or inconvenience.

 

[CAshooter]

I would see it working like this, and I'm making some assumptions here because I don't see all of the facts being reported in the media:

1) The suspect was reportedly engaged in a "Road Rage" incident involving a firearm.

2) The nice CHP officers stop the suspect and discover a firearm, which supports the veracity of the initial report. The media reports are silent on the next point, but I assume that the nice officers would check AFS for records of additional firearms associated with the suspect.

3) The conduct, coupled with the likely possession (keep in mind that AFS does not track possession) of additional firearms support the issuance of a "Emergency Gun Violence Restraining Order." The nice CHP officer have standing to seek such an order.

4) Once the order is issued by the judge, and the suspect remains in custody (and therefore unable to personally surrender his remaining firearms) the nice officers have standing to secure a Search Warrant to recover any additional firearms.

I could see that. Only thing I would change is reverse the order of events in point number two. I’ll explain:

If I were investigating a road rage gun-waving incident, the very first thing I would do, once I have a possible suspect identified, is check AFS for guns registered to, and check to see if he/she is prohibited from possessing firearms. Then worry about tracking him down and arresting him. Legal gun owner or not, it doesn’t change my approach to arresting the suspect. He’s gonna get treated like an armed & dangerous felony suspect.

 

[Gawernator]

Thanks for the insight
I’ve always wondered this as anyone can make claims such as this just to cause someone to have a bad day or inconvenience.

They can and it will. You'll probably get treated as a criminal sadly.

 

[PlinkyDinky]

Such a waste...