PDA

View Full Version : CHP officer with AW and tax issues update.


RP1911
05-14-2010, 8:44 AM
Sacramento DA: CHP officer pleads no contest to weapons charge
By Andy Furillo
afurillo@sacbee.com

A California Highway Patrol officer has pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of possessing an unregistered assault rifle and has been sentenced to three years informal probation.

Officer Kinley L. Jong, 48, also was sentenced to 180 hours of community service, Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney Alan Hengel said today.

Jong entered his plea May 4 in Sacramento Superior Court.

He had been arrested Jan. 5 by state Franchise Tax Board agents and charged with tax fraud. Those charges were dropped on March 23 due to insufficient evidence, Hengel said.

A search of his home in the tax fraud case turned up the weapon, according to the prosecutor. Hengel said Jong purchased the assault rifle legally but failed to get it registered in compliance with changes in the law.

Jong, who could not be reached for comment today, is still working as a CHP officer, agency spokeswoman Jaime Coffee said. The spokeswoman said she could not say if Jong was ever disciplined as a result of the case.

Call The Bee's Andy Furillo, (916) 321-1141.



Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/#ixzz0nv2jdAqS

Barabas
05-14-2010, 8:51 AM
grrrr.

PolishMike
05-14-2010, 9:04 AM
wonder how big my ******* would be if that happened to me, lol

CCWFacts
05-14-2010, 9:23 AM
A California Highway Patrol officer has pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of possessing an unregistered assault rifle and has been sentenced to three years informal probation.

Wow. Some animals are more equal than others. I know if i were caught with the a flashhider on the wrong rifle I would be lucky to get a felony with a suspended sentence or something like that.

n2k
05-14-2010, 9:35 AM
May this set a precedent for this type of offense?

elenius
05-14-2010, 9:42 AM
I guess they failed to use the option of treating it as an infraction... Maybe CGF should defend this guy??

Liberty1
05-14-2010, 10:24 AM
I guess they failed to use the option of treating it as an infraction... Maybe CGF should defend this guy??

No, it's not a CGF style case. And it's over. And he pled and was sentenced.

Shotgun Man
05-14-2010, 10:29 AM
I guess they failed to use the option of treating it as an infraction... Maybe CGF should defend this guy??

He has already pled no contest.

I can't speak for Sacramento, but in LA, most if not all AW cases are filed as felonies. It is almost impossible to get them reduced to misdemeanors pre-plea, even if you're a veteran with no record.

Judges and prosecutors have such an anti-gun mentality, they think if you have a gun (let alone an AW), you're dangerous.

It is entirely likely this guy got special treatment because he is a cop.

Spaceghost
05-14-2010, 10:29 AM
Wow, bummer for this guy he wasn't treated like the tool cop that had an nonregistered SBR and the DA wasn't sure if weapon laws applied to him and the BATF passed on pressing charges since he was a cop.

Sobriquet
05-14-2010, 10:30 AM
Wow. Some animals are more equal than others.

My thoughts exactly.

SteveH
05-14-2010, 11:07 AM
He got the biggest penalty i have seen yet for possession of an unregistered AW. Most are just losing the gun with no fine or probation.

bwiese
05-14-2010, 11:08 AM
1.) If this guy's still a CHP officer, every future arrest he makes or case he's involved in, touches, testifies
in, etc. must have this information disclosed to defense. This is especially important in matters where
officer credibility is key, but disclosure is really mandated regardless.

Whether or not it was a misdemeanor/felony/nuisance - or even not charged and a nastygram merely
put in his personnel file[/i] - it is still disclosable if the fact pattern indicates sufficiently high threshold:
i.e., chargeable, as opposed to just a rumor floating around with no backing.

Disclosure of possibly exculpatory information by DA offices is big news and has been in the headlines
elsewhere: for example, Santa Clara DA Office was (approx. story) not disclosing exculpatory hospital
interview videos in child abuse cases to defense.


2.) During the period he illegally possessed the unregistered AW, all cases he touched are tainted by
the highly likely fact he didn't (nor could his dept) disclose this illegal conduct. Some/many cases touched
by this officer could use this as grounds for retrial -- certainly cases in which "officer credibility" was key
issue to case (buy/bust drug cases, etc.)


3.) San Francisco Police Dept & SF DA (Kamala Harris') office are going thru violent tumult regarding disclosures
about deeply flawed evidence treatment in the drug lab (sloppy measurements, "slippage" in inventory due
to hiring of a cokehead alcoholic domestic violence abuser, etc.) The SF Public Defender has grounds to ask
for many cases to be tossed or retried based on this - combined with lack of its disclosure to defense. This is
not just the public defender trying for easy wins; this is a HUGE problem.


4.) In ~2000-01, SFPD had a group of officers popped by them/DOJ (Iggy) for illegal AW acquisition/possession.
The ones not dealing in them seem to have just gotten nastygrams in their personnel file, even though felony
charges could easily have been filed. It's unclear if cases generated by these officers have ever had this info
propagated to defense per Brady/Giglio.


5.) Other impediments to officer credibility, such as dismissal from DOJ, judges questioning 'expert' status and
stating agent didn't know "apples from oranges" and resulting in near-perjured testimony, etc. are also very
discloseable issues in gun cases. Sometimes you can leave the DOJ but your DOJ history doesn't leave you -
especially when you still pose as 'expert'.


There could perhaps be certain situations where CGF would actually defend an officer w/an illegal unreg'd AW,
esp if DOJ issues, differential treatment, etc. could be shown, or some key flaw with the law could be exploited.

SteveH
05-14-2010, 11:09 AM
May this set a precedent for this type of offense?

Hope not. He got in more trouble that you typical AW possession suspect.

Shotgun Man
05-14-2010, 11:19 AM
He got the biggest penalty i have seen yet for possession of an unregistered AW. Most are just losing the gun with no fine or probation.

Must be nice living where you're living.

SteveH
05-14-2010, 11:25 AM
Must be nice living where you're living.

It is.

Our DA routinely uses the civili forfieture for unlegestered or unlawfully transported AW's.

b.faust
05-14-2010, 11:26 AM
What exactly was his AW?
A 'legal' length AR without a BB? A SBR?

I couldn't find information on it.
(not that it really matters I guess, I'm just curious)

SteveH
05-14-2010, 11:37 AM
Article says it was legally purchased but never registered. So something he legally got in a store prior to 2000 but never registered like thousands of other gun owners in the state.

huck
05-14-2010, 11:39 AM
I want to know more about the tax evasion charges. He was probably living in a mansion, driving two BMW's and a Mercedes on his $60K per year salary. He probably needed the AW for that.

G17GUY
05-14-2010, 3:25 PM
I want to know more about the tax evasion charges. He was probably living in a mansion, driving two BMW's and a Mercedes on his $60K per year salary. He probably needed the AW for that.

How about $107,000

http://www.sacbee.com/statepayresults/index.html?appSession=052153905224497&RecordID=167958&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=

bwiese
05-14-2010, 3:38 PM
Article says it was legally purchased but never registered. So something he legally got in a store prior to 2000 but never registered like thousands of other gun owners in the state.

It could easily have been an "unconfigured" OLL - Stag, etc.

Tons of LA-area cops have been seen outside gunshops removing their BBs or MonsterMans.

b.faust
05-14-2010, 3:44 PM
It could easily have been an "unconfigured" OLL - Stag, etc.

Tons of LA-area cops have been seen outside gunshops removing their BBs or MonsterMans.

I have had a few conversations with LEOs who say tell me it's O.K. for them to have X style rifle (SBR, no BB, listed by name)

I'm aware that they need written paperwork for this, and then it actually is OK, but I often wonder if they actually think they don't, and simply can own it because they're a LEO.

(this isn't a LEO bashing statement. I have LEO friends that do have BBs or Monsterman grips on their personal rifles)

E Pluribus Unum
05-14-2010, 3:48 PM
That is a bunch of crap. He bought the gun legally... and the charges that were used to search the house were dropped due to lack of evidence? That is a bunch of crap.

Doesn't that teach the government that all they have to do is drum up false charges, get a search warrant, and whatever they find is open game?

Grrr is right.

Patrick Aherne
05-14-2010, 4:06 PM
We don't know what was behind this plea deal. The sentence is more than I have seen for similar violations. As to the Brady issue, his defense was that he did not know the AW was illegal. His department should disclose the conviction to the DA, but I doubt all his previous cases will be, or should be appealed. The tax fraud conviction would have more serious implications regarding his prior testimony.

Now that the criminal stuff is over, he will be subject to an IA, if he lies during that, he is toast.

Dump1567
05-14-2010, 4:08 PM
That is a bunch of crap. He bought the gun legally... and the charges that were used to search the house were dropped due to lack of evidence? That is a bunch of crap.

Doesn't that teach the government that all they have to do is drum up false charges, get a search warrant, and whatever they find is open game?

Grrr is right.

I agree, but I think it's already worse than that.

Scenario #1
"Someone called and stated they heard a female screaming coming from your residence (whether a female is present at you res. or not). We need to come in and do a "Welfare Check" of your residence."

Or

Scenario #2
"We received a 911 hang-up from your residence (whether you have a land line or not). We need to come in and do a "Welfare Check" of your residence."

I'm assuming anything they see in plain sight (legal or not) is fair game.

These two above "exigent circumstances" scenarios disturb me immensely.

Bizcuits
05-14-2010, 5:38 PM
A search of his home in the tax fraud case turned up the weapon, according to the prosecutor. Hengel said Jong purchased the assault rifle legally but failed to get it registered in compliance with changes in the law.

This, as well as his ripe old age of 48, leads me to believe he purchased the rifle before the original AW ban was in place. He may of just never registered it. I know several who never registered their AW's, but still had the original reciepts and transfer paperwork and didn't even get a slap on the wrist years later.

CCWFacts
05-14-2010, 7:40 PM
Disclosure of possibly exculpatory information by DA offices is big news and has been in the headlines
elsewhere

Yes, for those interested, it's called Brady evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland). The wiki article is a good read. It's very well established and it is a killer WRT police officers owning unpapered AWs. They may get a "brass pass" and escape prosecution but it massively taints every single case they are involved in.

3.) San Francisco Police Dept & SF DA (Kamala Harris') office are going thru violent tumult regarding disclosures
about deeply flawed evidence treatment in the drug lab (sloppy measurements, "slippage" in inventory due
to hiring of a cokehead alcoholic domestic violence abuser, etc.) The SF Public Defender has grounds to ask
for many cases to be tossed or retried based on this - combined with lack of its disclosure to defense. This is
not just the public defender trying for easy wins; this is a HUGE problem.


SFPD is basically having a Chernobyl right now. First they have a crime lab tech who can't keep the evidence from going up her nose (http://www.forensicmag.com/News_Articles.asp?pid=898), and then, even worse, 80 officers have conduct that was improperly withheld from defense (http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-05-04/news/20883129_1_police-officers-cocaine-cases-police-disciplinary-cases) in thousands of cases, every single one of which can now ask for a retrial:

More than 80 San Francisco police officers have criminal histories or misconduct records that the Police Department withheld and prosecutors did not disclose to defense attorneys in cases in which officers testified, a failure that could put hundreds of felony convictions in jeopardy, The Chronicle has learned.

The potential fallout could be far more severe than that caused by the cocaine-skimming scandal at the San Francisco police drug lab, which prompted prosecutors to dismiss more than 600 narcotics cases, experts say.

Alas, it's impossible for me to conjure up any speck of sympathy for DA Kamela Harris, Chief Gascon, or Sheriff Hennessey. They should all be put on parking patrol in my opinion.

Mac
05-14-2010, 10:09 PM
He has already pled no contest.

It is entirely likely this guy got special treatment because he is a cop.

Ya think. :D

SteveH
05-14-2010, 10:57 PM
Ya think. :D

What makes you think he got special treatment?

We have seen much less for the same charge. Civil forfieture of the rifle and dismissal of the charges is pretty much SOP. But they didn't give him that deal.

He instead has a conviction on his record and 3-years probation.

postal
05-14-2010, 11:17 PM
What makes you think he got special treatment?

We have seen much less for the same charge. Civil forfieture of the rifle and dismissal of the charges is pretty much SOP. But they didn't give him that deal.

He instead has a conviction on his record and 3-years probation.

"Informal probation".

Which is what exactly, double super secret probation diddly squat? Can anyone find his Probation Officer?

If he doesnt have a P.O. He's NOT on PROBATION..... Just something a PR person drummed up for the media...

I dont know enough about AW cases to know if what he got was better or worse than the average person, but the "informal probation" is informally a whole lot of hot air.

Mac
05-15-2010, 5:41 AM
What makes you think he got special treatment?

We have seen much less for the same charge. Civil forfieture of the rifle and dismissal of the charges is pretty much SOP. But they didn't give him that deal.

He instead has a conviction on his record and 3-years probation.

Don't get me wrong, as a Gun owner I am on his side. Just a sly wink if you will because my Father was, Brother is LEO as well as two Cousins. without going into a long diatribe on our Nice Tidy Little System we have, they do get a pass.

Ok So he is Clean and possession of the unregistered AW
is a Wobbler according ot the Calguns Wiki. That is good.
You allude to that being the usual case. Even better.

What I do not buy is this and the Arbitrary and Capricious way the Courts can impose it on regular citizens.
Look at the bottom under penalties:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Possession_of_UNregistered_California_%22assault_w eapons%22

6172crew
05-15-2010, 6:32 AM
That is a bunch of crap. He bought the gun legally... and the charges that were used to search the house were dropped due to lack of evidence? That is a bunch of crap.

Doesn't that teach the government that all they have to do is drum up false charges, get a search warrant, and whatever they find is open game?

Grrr is right.

If this would have happened to a CGN member I think we would see more statements like this one. The guys occupation shouldn't be a reason for us to throw a CA gun owner under the bus.

SteveH
05-15-2010, 9:55 AM
"Informal probation".

Which is what exactly, double super secret probation diddly squat? Can anyone find his Probation Officer?

Informal probation is administrated by the DA and the court, not the probation department.

With formal probation if you violate the terms of your probation you get rearrested and a hold on you under CPC 1203.

With informal probation if you violate the terms of your probation you get charged under CPC 166(a)(4).

Any cop with an MDC can find out the probation terms. In a case like this the terms would likely include search and seizure and possess no weapons.

tyrist
05-15-2010, 10:20 AM
This guy got hammered more than most. On a single AW charge with no other priors or other issues (presence of drugs/domestic violence/child abuse/gang member etc) it's usually charged as an infraction with a fine and loss of firearm.

The last case I knew of the guy got summary probation but he had 6 counts. The probation was just for one and the other five were dropped.

From the article it sounds like he had been given permission to purchase the AW and just didn't register it within the correct time limit. If any case warranted an infraction charge only this would have been it.

REH
05-15-2010, 10:21 AM
What scares me, is once they are in your house for whatever reason, anything is fair game for an arrest. What really sucks, is the charges were dropped that brought on the search.

jnojr
05-15-2010, 10:45 AM
Jong, who could not be reached for comment today, is still working as a CHP officer, agency spokeswoman Jaime Coffee said.

Of course he is.

sac550
05-15-2010, 2:24 PM
"Informal probation".

Which is what exactly, double super secret probation diddly squat? Can anyone find his Probation Officer?

If he doesnt have a P.O. He's NOT on PROBATION..... Just something a PR person drummed up for the media...

I dont know enough about AW cases to know if what he got was better or worse than the average person, but the "informal probation" is informally a whole lot of hot air.

AW cases where the suspect has no criminal history are often resolved for a misdo in Sac County. Many Judges in the County will reduce a gun felony to a misdo, sometimes over the objection of the DA.

In Sac County you people on informal do not have a probation officer, and many people on on Felony probation in Sac don't have a PO. They are completely unsupervised because there is no money to hire anyone to keep tabs on them.

postal
05-15-2010, 4:41 PM
Interesting information Steve and SAC, Clearly I was wrong.

The guy did get hammered.

CenterX
05-15-2010, 4:50 PM
Yep he did. Ponder if this is part of the CHANGE that folks voted for.

G17GUY
05-15-2010, 4:56 PM
This guy got hammered more than most. On a single AW charge with no other priors or other issues (presence of drugs/domestic violence/child abuse/gang member etc) it's usually charged as an infraction with a fine and loss of firearm.

The last case I knew of the guy got summary probation but he had 6 counts. The probation was just for one and the other five were dropped.

From the article it sounds like he had been given permission to purchase the AW and just didn't register it within the correct time limit. If any case warranted an infraction charge only this would have been it.

Or you can look at it as if he should of known better. An officer of the law needs to dot his i's and cross his t's.

motorhead
05-15-2010, 4:57 PM
oh bew hew, it taints his standing as l.e.. no jail time, no loss of gun rights

Patrick Aherne
05-15-2010, 7:03 PM
Yep he did. Ponder if this is part of the CHANGE that folks voted for.

It is my opinion that you are not correct. In my experience of 17 years, the DA goes after cops who commit wrongdoing much more strenuously than members of the general public who are accused of the same act. President Obama had nothing to do with this. A DA who wanted to make an example, so that everyone else stays in line, is more likely and as it should be.

postal
05-15-2010, 7:41 PM
It is my opinion that you are not correct. In my experience of 17 years, the DA goes after cops who commit wrongdoing much more strenuously than members of the general public who are accused of the same act. President Obama had nothing to do with this. A DA who wanted to make an example, so that everyone else stays in line, is more likely and as it should be.

This sounds logical to me. And I do agree is how it should be.

After all, that same LEO couldve hooked any one of us civilians for owning the VERY SAME RIFLE.

The DA would be making a very strong statement that LE are not above the law. And I strongly believe this is how it should be.

I would love to have a ticket book to write up police cars for traffic violations when not actively responding to an emergency.... I'd go through ticket books faster than a motorcycle cop......

I ride a motorcycle and have been cut off by city PD 3 times. 1 was an unmarked who failed to yeild the right of way when I had a green light- I swerved to avoid an accident and the LE had the nerve to pull me over.... Pull yourself over and write up a ticket for FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, RECKLESS DRIVING and pay a little over $1300 in fines for putting my life at risk and breaking the traffic laws.... Unfortunately he didnt write a ticket- it would have been amusing to present my case to a judge.