Chances of getting mags back from LAPD Gun Unit.

[cfm117]

[RickD427]

How did they get into your safe with no criminal case pending?

[Tim padilla]

There must be more to this , I haven’t heard of LAPD busting into anyones home with a abrasive saw and acetylene torch to take your firearms just to twist your nips and get a rise out of you.

If you served thank you .I hope this isn’t a unprovoked SS in the middle of the night type of situation your dealing with . Best of luck I hope you get you property back .

[Garbcollector]

Probably going to need a lawyer to help. But Is the cost of a lawyer vs cost of mags worth it?

[cfm117]

How did they get into your safe with no criminal case pending?

Third party call from neighbor after my and my ex gf had an arguement on driveway. She yells super loud and the elderly people next door called in. A unit showed up four hours later and they asked if there was any guns on the property and she said yes. They said either open the safe or we will be here all night and get a warrant anyway. I was watching from my home surveillance system

[cfm117]

Probably going to need a lawyer to help. But Is the cost of a lawyer vs cost of mags worth it?

No the mags are rare but not worth the cost.

[cfm117]

Thanks. They showed up at eight pm and were there until about 1am. They called some other people to drill out the safe. It took them hours. The report was taken as a DV call by 911 because all the shouting.

[cfm117]

How did they get into your safe with no criminal case pending?

My ex gf let them inside the house after they threatened to stay there all night until they got a warrant

[naz]

. The report was taken as a DV call by 911 because all the shouting.

Did they take the guns via “red flag” law?

[cfm117]

Did they take the guns via “red flag” law?

Seems worth it to talk to a lawyer so you can get the record straightened out with with police and get your stuff back?

They must have. I have not been contacted by the PD or got anything innthe mail regarding any case. They still have about seven pistols and 40 long guns and 10k rounds of various types of ammo

[RickD427]

Third party call from neighbor after my and my ex gf had an arguement on driveway. She yells super loud and the elderly people next door called in. A unit showed up four hours later and they asked if there was any guns on the property and she said yes. They said either open the safe or we will be here all night and get a warrant anyway. I was watching from my home surveillance system

Something's not adding up here.

A verbal argument, even one that involves domestic parties does not permit a warrantless search of a safe.

Penal Code section 18250 does mandate the temporary seizure of firearms at domestic violence scenes, but only if found during a consensual, or other lawful search. PC 18250 does not, of itself, provide access to a locked safe.

If there was no consent given to search the safe, and no exigency (or other exception to the warrant requirement) was present, then a search warrant would have been required. The search warrant would require "Probable Cause" be present to suspect a qualifying crime (not all crimes qualify for a search warrant), or the "Red Flag" criteria must be shown.

If the magazines were taken pursuant to a warrant, then you must have been provided an inventory of all items seized pursuant to the warrant.

I'm not seeing where the gun unit got involved here. The gun unit does not respond to domestic dispute calls.

If the mags were seized under the authority of a warrant, all conventional wisdom calls for you to retain a qualified lawyer. That lawyer can better advise you of your options than can members of this forum.

If the magazines were seized without a warrant, you need to find out what was the lawful standing for the seizure to have occurred before going any further.

There is a current federal court order that prevents the prosecution of folks for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines. But there is a non-criminal statute that allows LEOs to seize and destroy large-capacity magazines. That statute is unaffected by the federal court order. For the moment, it would allow LAPD to hold the magazines. Follow the Duncan v Bonta case. It has the potential to overturn this statute.

[cfm117]

Something's not adding up here.

A verbal argument, even one that involves domestic parties does not permit a warrantless search of a safe.

Penal Code section 18250 does mandate the temporary seizure of firearms at domestic violence scenes, but only if found during a consensual, or other lawful search. PC 18250 does not, of itself, provide access to a locked safe.

If there was no consent given to search the safe, and no exigency (or other exception to the warrant requirement) was present, then a search warrant would have been required. The search warrant would require "Probable Cause" be present to suspect a qualifying crime (not all crimes qualify for a search warrant), or the "Red Flag" criteria must be shown.

If the magazines were taken pursuant to a warrant, then you must have been provided an inventory of all items seized pursuant to the warrant.

I'm not seeing where the gun unit got involved here. The gun unit does not respond to domestic dispute calls.

If the mags were seized under the authority of a warrant, all conventional wisdom calls for you to retain a qualified lawyer. That lawyer can better advise you of your options than can members of this forum.

If the magazines were seized without a warrant, you need to find out what was the lawful standing for the seizure to have occurred before going any further.

There is a current federal court order that prevents the prosecution of folks for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines. But there is a non-criminal statute that allows LEOs to seize and destroy large-capacity magazines. That statute is unaffected by the federal court order. For the moment, it would allow LAPD to hold the magazines. Follow the Duncan v Bonta case. It has the potential to overturn this statute.

Yea there was one black and white at first then about six others showed up then two supervisors then unmarked explorers from the gun unit. They did indeed make forcible entry at two storage locations in my house. My ex gf did not give them the combos but let them in the house. I was finally able to talk to someone from the gun unit yesterday and got an inventory over a month later.

[bugsy714]

Something's not adding up here.

A verbal argument, even one that involves domestic parties does not permit a warrantless search of a safe.

Penal Code section 18250 does mandate the temporary seizure of firearms at domestic violence scenes, but only if found during a consensual, or other lawful search. PC 18250 does not, of itself, provide access to a locked safe.

If there was no consent given to search the safe, and no exigency (or other exception to the warrant requirement) was present, then a search warrant would have been required. The search warrant would require "Probable Cause" be present to suspect a qualifying crime (not all crimes qualify for a search warrant), or the "Red Flag" criteria must be shown.

If the magazines were taken pursuant to a warrant, then you must have been provided an inventory of all items seized pursuant to the warrant.

I'm not seeing where the gun unit got involved here. The gun unit does not respond to domestic dispute calls.

If the mags were seized under the authority of a warrant, all conventional wisdom calls for you to retain a qualified lawyer. That lawyer can better advise you of your options than can members of this forum.

If the magazines were seized without a warrant, you need to find out what was the lawful standing for the seizure to have occurred before going any further.

There is a current federal court order that prevents the prosecution of folks for the simple possession of large-capacity magazines. But there is a non-criminal statute that allows LEOs to seize and destroy large-capacity magazines. That statute is unaffected by the federal court order. For the moment, it would allow LAPD to hold the magazines. Follow the Duncan v Bonta case. It has the potential to overturn this statute.

Sounds like she gave consent once you give consent all bets are off

How much damage was done to the safe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cfm117]

Sounds like she gave consent once you give consent all bets are off

How much damage was done to the safe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely destroyed, not serviceable at all.

[RickD427]

Sounds like she gave consent once you give consent all bets are off

How much damage was done to the safe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. Please refer to the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v Randolph. It resolves of the issue of what happens when one interested party gives consent, and another interested party refuses consent.