ATF warrantless search video

[surfdesigner]

https://www.activistpost.com/2022/07/we-need-to-see-your-guns-atf-conducts-warrantless-search-demands-to-see-mans-legally-owned-guns.html

Original article from Activistpost.com

Net of the article...

(When purchasing multiple firearms at the same time)
"US attorneys offices and the ATF announced that they will be investigating straw purchases more aggressively"

"The homeowner had been coerced into a warrantless search of his property despite the fact that he was not suspected of committing a crime, nor was he the subject of any law-enforcement action."

"In fact, because the ATF agents did not have a warrant, it means they lacked any probable cause to obtain one. Their entire warrantless search relied on the compliance of the homeowner."

Q: "Can we see your guns?"
Correct Answer: "Can I see your warrant with a signed affidavit? No? Come back when you have one".

[RickD427]

https://www.activistpost.com/2022/07...wned-guns.html
Original article from Activistpost.com

Net of the article...

(When purchasing multiple firearms at the same time)
"US attorneys offices and the ATF announced that they will be investigating straw purchases more aggressively"

"The homeowner had been coerced into a warrantless search of his property despite the fact that he was not suspected of committing a crime, nor was he the subject of any law-enforcement action."

"In fact, because the ATF agents did not have a warrant, it means they lacked any probable cause to obtain one. Their entire warrantless search relied on the compliance of the homeowner."

Q: "Can we see your guns?"
Correct Answer: "Can I see your warrant with a signed affidavit? No? Come back when you have one".

A couple of points:

1) The lack of a warrant says nothing about the existence of supporting probable cause. There could have been plenty of probable cause, and the officer simply didn't take the time to get a warrant, or there could have been no probable cause, or anything in between.

2) If there is no warrant, and no circumstance that would excuse the need for a warrant, then the homeowner is under no obligation to permit a search.

3) To conduct a lawful search warrant service, it is only required that the nice officers have a search warrant. There is no requirement for them to present the warrant to any persons at the scene, and there is no requirement to provide the supporting affidavit. I've always offered a copy of the warrant when served. It just seemed a good practice, but was not legally required. The supporting affidavit typically contains information that is not appropriate for release to people at the scene, and at the time of service. The affidavit is normally only released following the discovery process. The only document that is legally required to be delivered to folks at the scene is an inventory of items seized.

[surfdesigner]

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/three-things-you-must-do-if-you-receive-search-warrant

"Under federal law, if asked, police officers have to show a person a copy of the search warrant"

"However, if you don’t ask, they do not need to provide you with a copy."

Author: Dr. Nick Oberheiden
Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

[RickD427]

https://www.natlawreview.com/article...search-warrant

Not true in California.

Please refer to Penal Code sections 1523-1542 regarding the service of Search Warrants.

I did read Dr. Oberheiden's statement that federal law requires the presentation of a warrant. I can't tell if he's referring to a federal search warrant, or if he is suggesting that federal law requires the presentation of a state-issued warrant. If the former, he may well be correct. I only served federal warrants early in my career and briefly as director of a state-federal task force. If the the latter, he is mistaken.

[surfdesigner]

From the link you provided, doesn't the "party who appears to have possession or control of the items sought" mean the homeowner? If so, then "warrant shall be served" seems pretty clear.

(3) The warrant shall, whenever practicable, be served during
normal business hours. In addition, the warrant shall be served upon
a party who appears to have possession or control of the items
sought. If, after reasonable efforts, the party serving the warrant
is unable to locate the person, the special master shall seal and
return to the court, for determination by the court, any item that
appears to be privileged as provided by law.

[surfdesigner]

This would make sense since without being able to see the search warrant, the homeowner would have no idea what the "probable cause" was for the search from the signed affidavit or if they even had one as they said. They would not know what the police were searching for/evidence that could be seized, where they were permitted to search, if they had the correct person's name/address, if it was within the specified period listed, among other things that must be specifically listed in detail on the warrant.

If Police showed up, said they had a warrant but weren't required to show it to you and you didn't open the door to let them in, they can break it open, put you in handcuffs to "secure the area" and then search your home, not telling you anything and start seizing property. That pretty much defines "unreasonable search and seizure" from the 4th Amendment to me.

BTW, I'm not against LEOs. I think the majority of them are good people trying to do the right thing. But these kinds of actions against law abiding People are why Police continue to garner distrust.

[RickD427]

From the link you provided, doesn't the "party who appears to have possession or control of the items sought" mean the homeowner? If so, then "warrant shall be served" seems pretty clear.

(3) The warrant shall, whenever practicable, be served during
normal business hours. In addition, the warrant shall be served upon
a party who appears to have possession or control of the items
sought. If, after reasonable efforts, the party serving the warrant
is unable to locate the person, the special master shall seal and
return to the court, for determination by the court, any item that
appears to be privileged as provided by law.

I'm not sure where you're going with this question. The excerpt that you posted above from the California Penal Code only addresses warrants served on a lawyer, therapist, clergyman and where a "special master" was appointed by the judge issuing the warrant. That's hardly relevant to issue we're discussing here, where the warrant was issued for the residential search of person who purchased multiple firearms, and where there is additional evidence of a firearms related crime. Am I missing something here, or are you changing the topic? Where does the lawyer, clergyman, or therapist come into our discussion?

This would make sense since without being able to see the search warrant, the homeowner would have no idea what the "probable cause" was for the search from the signed affidavit or if they even had one as they said. They would not know what the police were searching for/evidence that could be seized, where they were permitted to search, if they had the correct person's name/address, if it was within the specified period listed, among other things that must be listed in detail on the warrant.

If Police showed up, said they had a warrant (but weren't required to show it to you) and you didn't open the door and let them in, they can break it open, put you in handcuffs to "secure the area" and then search your home, not telling you anything and start seizing property. That pretty much defines "unreasonable search and seizure" from the 4th Amendment to me.

BTW, I'm not against LEOs. I think the majority of them are good people trying to do the right thing. But these kinds of actions against law abiding People are why Police continue to garner distrust.

Please keep in mind that it is the "Detached Magistrate" who is charged with making the decision if a warrant will be issued, and what is to be searched for. His/her/it/other's decision is not subject to review by the homeowner.

You do make a very good point, and explain the reason why I would always present a copy of the warrant to the homeowner, even though California law did not require that I do so. The presentation of the warrant went a long way to satisfy the homeowner of my lawful standing to conduct the search. I would also normally allow the homeowner to contact their attorney, once the location was secure, even though that action was not required by California law. Attorneys would normally give the advice not to interfere in the service of the warrant, which was helpful to my objectives.

It is possible to serve a lawfully issued warrant in an unreasonable manner. The infamous LAPD "Dalton Street Raid" being an excellent example.

You may also want to review the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Meuhler v Mena to get a better understanding of the conditions under which persons at the location can be securely detained during the service of a warrant.

[surfdesigner]

Well, after researching it quite a bit and a lot of attorneys quoting the contrary you are correct, there is no legal obligation to show it and court cases to back it up.

This was the best resource I found from Alameda County.

https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/F13_Executing_SW.pdf

Page 8: Displaying the Warrant

"After securing the premises, officers will ordinarily show the occupants a copy of the warrant. This is not, however, required under California law. (71) In fact, as noted earlier, officers at the scene are not even required to possess a copy of the warrant. Still, displaying a copy is considered a “highly desirable” practice as it demonstrates to the occupant that there is color of authority for the search, and that he is not entitled to oppose it by force.

(71) See People v. Calabrese (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 79, 85 [“The officers were not required to display the warrant or give Calabrese
a copy of it”];

Nunes v. Superior Court (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 915, 936 [“But we search in vain for California law requiring either
reading or leaving copies of the warrants with the householder.”]

People v. Rodrigues-Fernandez (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 543, 553
[“There is no statutory or constitutional requirement that a search warrant be exhibited as a prerequisite to execute it”].

[lastinline]

All this makes an excellent case for securely storing a portion of your guns in a place where LE can’t find them, by whatever means necessary.

[Featureless]

IANAL but this is how I would handle it.

If they say they have a warrant I'd stand aside and let them in. I would not say anything nor would I answer any questions. I would record/video them the entire time. Am I wrong?

[bohoki]

was the goal to verify the guns were still in the buyers possession?

[pacrat]

I find the entire article CLICKBAITY-DISENGENUOUS-INNACCURATE.

Officer asked in a cordial, and polite manner. NO DEMANDS were made or inferred. There was NO SEARCH. They actually NEVER entered, or requested entry, into the home. And agreed with homeowner that they would wait outside.

Also cop with papers that did majority of talking. Even said to guy leaning on rail. "I don't blame him". Obviously for taking a cautious posture with officers.

Where was the ATF? The officer holding papers specifically said. "request from the FEDERAL SIDE". Giving the distinct impression that they are local LE.

This is the type "stuff" we have come to expect from the likes of "CopBlock" type weenies.

I'm all for holding ALL LE, to legal, and moral, standards in the performance of their duties. But this type of "FABRICATED US v THEM" divisiveness. Is IMHO just CRAP.

JM2c

[Barang]

You do make a very good point, and explain the reason why I would always present a copy of the warrant to the homeowner, even though California law did not require that I do so. The presentation of the warrant went a long way to satisfy the homeowner of my lawful standing to conduct the search. I would also normally allow the homeowner to contact their attorney, once the location was secure, even though that action was not required by California law. Attorneys would normally give the advice not to interfere in the service of the warrant, which was helpful to my objectives.

i like this approach. not confrontational and giving the owner every opportunity to comply knowing that he/she can freely call their lawyer if they wish.

[surfdesigner]

I'm just disappointed in our legal system and police authority. What I learned today is Police can knock on your door and by merely stating they have a warrant, come in without your consent, search through your house without explaining the reason they are there, take your property and leave without having to explain anything, except leaving you a receipt of what they've taken. Great.

[champu]

I'm just disappointed in our legal system and police authority. What I learned today is Police can knock on your door and by merely stating they have a warrant, come in without your consent, search through your house without explaining the reason they are there, take your property and leave without having to explain anything, except leaving you a receipt of what they've taken. Great.