3 ms·
> And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun. Yes they should. Either they are arrest
by Lawtonfogle 11y ago
> And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun.
Yes they should. Either they are arresting you and the gun gets processed like everything else, or they aren't arresting you and thus need a warrant to seize anything from you. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest you for the crime then they don't have enough evidence to seize the gun without a warrant.
- drumdance 11y agoWhat if you were just passing through and they hit you with a bullshit charge, the fine for which is "give us your gun?" That's the way these laws often work. They snag people who don't live in the area and don't have the resources to fight them in court (especially if you seize their money).
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoWhich is why either they have enough to arrest you, enough to get a warrant, or they don't take your property.
- drumdance 11y agoBut they do take your property. "There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800." http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...
- hyperpape 11y agoYou're not actually denying what I said. If they arrest you without a warrant, then they seize that gun without a warrant. As for whether they should ever be able to seize a gun without arresting you, I'll defer an opinion--I feel like my knowledge of the variety of cases isn't up to snuff.