• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

ok legal researchers

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I have a real life situation I'm working on, and a question.

Land owner has a shooting range.
Land owner has told hunt club to keep out.
Hunt club tells members they are going to run landowner out of town.

Hunt club calls LEO also a hunt club member land owner shot their dog. No reason to think the land owner did it except they heard shots (it was Saturday during hunting season and there was shooting everywhere).

Pet LEO goes to land owners house and asks if he was shooting. Land owner says yes he was shooting at his range. No mention of a dog.

LEO says he wants a written statement saying he was shooting which landowner wrote, but wouldn't sign until LEO tells him why he wants it.

At what point does LEO need to advise landowner he has the right to remain silent....and no, it wasn't me. And...no, the land owner didn't shoot the dog if indeed a dog was shot.
 

ArmedBarrister

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
27
Generally speaking, law enforcement is only required to notify an individual of the right to remain silent in the context of traditional Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are only required if the individual is subject to a "custodial interrogation." Different cases use different words. The short version is that the individual must be 1) arrested and 2) subject to some form of questioning or conversation that will illicit a response. (Questions about basic identifying information are exempted (e.g., name, date of birth, social security, etc.).)

As for whether someone is actually under arrest for Miranda purposes, believe it or not, it is not always clear. What is clear, from your fact pattern, is that this individual is most certainly not under arrest or in custody. Miranda warnings are not applicable here.

It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway: He should stop talking to the police.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Generally speaking, law enforcement is only required to notify an individual of the right to remain silent in the context of traditional Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are only required if the individual is subject to a "custodial interrogation." Different cases use different words. The short version is that the individual must be 1) arrested and 2) subject to some form of questioning or conversation that will illicit a response. (Questions about basic identifying information are exempted (e.g., name, date of birth, social security, etc.).)

As for whether someone is actually under arrest for Miranda purposes, believe it or not, it is not always clear. What is clear, from your fact pattern, is that this individual is most certainly not under arrest or in custody. Miranda warnings are not applicable here.

It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway: He should stop talking to the police.

What about demanding a written statement and yes, I told them never talk to the cops and gave them Users letter
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Generally speaking, law enforcement is only required to notify an individual of the right to remain silent in the context of traditional Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are only required if the individual is subject to a "custodial interrogation." Different cases use different words. The short version is that the individual must be 1) arrested and 2) subject to some form of questioning or conversation that will illicit a response. (Questions about basic identifying information are exempted (e.g., name, date of birth, social security, etc.).)

As for whether someone is actually under arrest for Miranda purposes, believe it or not, it is not always clear. What is clear, from your fact pattern, is that this individual is most certainly not under arrest or in custody. Miranda warnings are not applicable here.

It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway: He should stop talking to the police.

+1
and let me add that one should never sign any document that may implicate one in a future criminal or civil litigation.

Regards

CCJ
 
Last edited:

ArmedBarrister

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
27
What about demanding a written statement and yes, I told them never talk to the cops and gave them Users letter

They can demand all they want. Written, verbal, sign language, doesn't matter. The analysis stays the same. Without a custodial interrogation, Miranda doesn't apply.

(Although, if you were to parse the officer's exact wording, I would bet $20 that the actual wording was in the form of a question or a request.)
 

ArmedBarrister

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
27
+1
and let me add that one should never sign any document that may implicate one in a future criminal or civil litigation.

Regards

CCJ

In this specific situation, the signature—or lack thereof—is almost meaningless. The content of his statements, verbal and written, will be used against him, regardless of whether he signs anything.

Edit: I agree with your statement. Sorry if my reply implied otherwise.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
+1
and let me add that one should never sign any document that may implicate one in a future criminal or civil litigation.

Regards

CCJ

I expect you know the case joe and he was charged with animal cruelty which was dismissed because of no evidence and also charged with reckless handling because they thought the house 150 yards to the right of the range was too close. That was continued for a year to be dismissed on good behavior.

Another simular case in the same area.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
I expect you know the case joe and he was charged with animal cruelty which was dismissed because of no evidence and also charged with reckless handling because they thought the house 150 yards to the right of the range was too close. That was continued for a year to be dismissed on good behavior.

Another simular case in the same area.

But what does the law actually say? http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-1209 Would not the county need to designate such areas by either proclamation or recorded vote?

In the alternative http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-56.1

§ 18.2-56.1. Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

A1. Any person who handles any firearm in a manner so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life and causes the serious bodily injury of another person resulting in permanent and significant physical impairment is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
....

They can claim to have had thoughts, but quite apparently those were feelings.

Is it worth fighting? Without proof that the shooting was in a direction that went outside the berm/backstop it shopuld be difficult to establish endangerment.

Even though now they have a sword hanging over his head they can cut loose for any reason. Even though the charge will NOT be dismissed with prejudice?

stay safe.
 

FBrinson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
297
Location
Henrico, VA
I would look into the connection of the LEO and the hunt club, which I am sure is already being done. FOIA already requested for the call made to LEA? or is it already known how this was originally called in?

I have not looked at all the local firearms ordinances for this particular county but just from the DGIF website one ordinance stood out:

42. It shall be unlawful to use a rifle of a
caliber larger than .22 rimfire except
that groundhogs may be hunted with a
rifle of a caliber largerthan .22 rimfire
between March 1 and August 31.

I'm not sure if the person who was charged used a rifle or pistol and I can't remember if he even mentioned it.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I would look into the connection of the LEO and the hunt club, which I am sure is already being done. FOIA already requested for the call made to LEA? or is it already known how this was originally called in?

I have not looked at all the local firearms ordinances for this particular county but just from the DGIF website one ordinance stood out:

42. It shall be unlawful to use a rifle of a
caliber larger than .22 rimfire except
that groundhogs may be hunted with a
rifle of a caliber largerthan .22 rimfire
between March 1 and August 31.

I'm not sure if the person who was charged used a rifle or pistol and I can't remember if he even mentioned it.

Those are hunting Regs FB. He was target shooting. What he was using was perfectly legal.
And yes, I'm looking into the initial call.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
+1
and let me add that one should never sign any document that may implicate one in a future criminal or civil litigation.

Regards

CCJ

Moreover, when it comes to police asking questions about yourself, why sign any document at all? There can be no benefit to you, only risk. Cop wants me to sign a document, the answer is no.

Just today, I was told by an acquaintance how years ago his bank account was breached, so he closed the account. A large check he did not remember when the bank employee showed him his ledger while "helping" him determine whether the bank could close the account bounced. The police stuck a business card in his door saying there was a problem in his neighborhood, and would he please call them. Civic-minded, and totally unaware of the bounced check, he called. They asked if he would come to the station, just a couple blocks away. Sure, why not? So, he went. You already guessed it. They arrested him. And, then because the store to which he had written the check was in another jurisdiction, he was extradited, ultimately going through weeks of headaches to get back his property used to secure bond, and longer to get his record expunged. Cops can be sneaky. There is no possible benefit to you to signing something the police want signed, only risk (unless you are a witness to another situation. I am talking about situations where the cops seem to be asking questions about you, or its unclear who their target is.)

Just tell the demanding cop that you'll run it by your attorney, and if he approves, you'll sign it make sure it gets back to the cop by Tuesday.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Moreover, when it comes to police asking questions about yourself, why sign any document at all? There can be no benefit to you, only risk. Cop wants me to sign a document, the answer is no.

Just today, I was told by an acquaintance how years ago his bank account was breached, so he closed the account. A large check he did not remember when the bank employee showed him his ledger while "helping" him determine whether the bank could close the account bounced. The police stuck a business card in his door saying there was a problem in his neighborhood, and would he please call them. Civic-minded, and totally unaware of the bounced check, he called. They asked if he would come to the station, just a couple blocks away. Sure, why not? So, he went. You already guessed it. They arrested him. And, then because the store to which he had written the check was in another jurisdiction, he was extradited, ultimately going through weeks of headaches to get back his property used to secure bond, and longer to get his record expunged. Cops can be sneaky. There is no possible benefit to you to signing something the police want signed, only risk (unless you are a witness to another situation. I am talking about situations where the cops seem to be asking questions about you, or its unclear who their target is.)

Just tell the demanding cop that you'll run it by your attorney, and if he approves, you'll sign it make sure it gets back to the cop by Tuesday.

Indeed, by stating to not sign the document, I was being nice, The real answer is hand the document back to the leo and tell him/her to go wipe their ass with it...
Regards.
CCJ
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Suggest filing for an injunction to make hunt club & their dogs stay off the property.

Its been tried in a few areas Dan, and as far as I know always ends up with a consent decree because of the expense and the fact that there are few lawyers capable of or willing to go the extra mile in research.

Unfortunately for the world there is only one User.:(

This is a short piece of a 4 and a half hour interview. I'm keeping the identities of all the people on both sides out of it til I finish all my interviews.

[video=vimeo;124698797]https://vimeo.com/124698797[/video]
 
Top