Confiscation After Defensive Shoot

[SMarquez]

I am not a LEO. This subject was brought up on another forum. If a defensive shooting happens in my home, I assume my gun would be confiscated for an investigation. What about the guns in my safe? I have family hand me down rifles, and my AR was bought before 2014. I would have a hard time proving ownership on some of them as the law applies today. How about if I was in a defensive shooting away from home. I imagine there are some jurisdictional differences but would like to hear from LEOs that have been involved in these scenarios.
Thanks

[RickD427]

I am not a LEO. This subject was brought up on another forum. If a defensive shooting happens in my home, I assume my gun would be confiscated for an investigation. What about the guns in my safe? I have family hand me down rifles, and my AR was bought before 2014. I would have a hard time proving ownership on some of them as the law applies today. How about if I was in a defensive shooting away from home. I imagine there are some jurisdictional differences but would like to hear from LEOs that have been involved in these scenarios.
Thanks

This question comes up a lot, and typically there is a lot of bad information provided in response.

Responding LEO's have a duty to seize evidence of a crime at the scene. They do that in order to facilitate the investigation, and also to meet their duty to preserve evidence that may be useful to the defense at trial.

Please note that there is no relevance to whether the owner of the seized property is suspected of criminal activity. It's only necessary that the item seized be reasonably believed connected to the criminal activity.

"Evidence" is something that would tend to prove, or disprove, a fact in dispute. Responding LEO's are at something of an informational disadvantage because they can't always predict what factual issues will become relevant in a future trial.

If an item is not "Evidence", and there is no other authority to seize it, then it can't be lawfully seized.

In a typical defensive shooting, plan on the weapon used being seized as evidence. Both for the investigative purpose of comparing the weapon to any recovered bullets, and to preserve it for use at any criminal trial resulting from the incident.

If the initial evidence at the scene shows that one of your weapons was fired, and you have a bunch of other weapons in your safe, then plan on the fired weapon going into evidence and the remaining weapons staying in the safe.

But if it cannot be established which weapon was fired, then plan on everything going into evidence. You'll likely get the uninvolved weapons back as soon as the lab is finished with them and you complete the LEGR requirements.

Plan on the involved weapon remaining in custody until the conclusion of any criminal matter involved.

[SMarquez]

Thanks Rick. That is how I hope it would go but I fell like we really never know until it does. Their is a lot of FUD out there about this. There are peole here that have gone through the LEGR process and it seems like a lot of agencies don't really want to release guns back to their lawful owners. Many seem to be DV related though the owners went through the process and were cleared to get their weapons back.

[Spaffo]

Rick, as usual, explains it well. The only exception is an officer-involved shooting. The firearm is usually not booked into evidence, at least in LAPD, as a fired round from that gun is already saved by the armory. In my 3 OIS, my pistol was inspected, the brass booked, and I reloaded and went back to work after being cleared by Behavioral Science Division.

[RickD427]

Rick, as usual, explains it well. The only exception is an officer-involved shooting. The firearm is usually not booked into evidence, at least in LAPD, as a fired round from that gun is already saved by the armory. In my 3 OIS, my pistol was inspected, the brass booked, and I reloaded and went back to work after being cleared by Behavioral Science Division.

You're right. LASD followed the same practice. The idea is that if there is a defense issue concerning the firearm, the agency could respond to it through the testimony of its armorer. There is also, admittedly, some application of the "Golden Rule" ("He who has the gold makes the rules") where the agency does not wish to remove the weapon from service for a protracted period.