Gun Permit Insufficient Cause for Car Search

[Marine Cpl]

New York Court Order Concludes Gun Permit Insufficient Cause for Car Search



“The Court does not find that the search of the Defendant's car was justified in any manner and accordingly grants the Defendant's motion and suppresses any evidence obtained from the search of the Defendant's car,” George E. Fufidio, Judge of the Westchester County Court wrote. That’s a significant opinion benefiting not just the defendant in the case of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- JONATHAN ROSE, Defendant, but for gun owners who find themselves in a similar situation.

Rose was charged with “class C violent felonies of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (two counts), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree (three counts), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (four counts) and a violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 402.”

 

[togmaster]

Good for you Judge Fufidio! I already have his autograph in my wallet.

 

[fartgamer]

Following this one, great news so far.

 

[Saltwater60]

Nice to know now that thensuper troopers and other cops have all our names on thier computers as pistol permit holders. I will never concent to a search of anything ever.

 

[Rocpo]

Nice to know now that thensuper troopers and other cops have all our names on thier computers as pistol permit holders. I will never concent to a search of anything ever.

Incorrect. NYSPIN does NOT HAVE that information in it.

Article states that he handed over an out of state pistol permit.

 

[Truebeliever]

The judge is wrong in his decision.

The permit makes asking the question about the presence of firearms reasonable and goes beyond a mere hunch.

The ehh noise from the defendant’s mouth is an indication he is lying. The decision is not binding any other case.

Sorry, you might disagree with the law but the questioning and search were good . Just because you disagree with the law doesn’t mean the officers were wrong.

 

[Jmac00]

The judge is wrong in his decision.

The permit makes asking the question about the presence of firearms reasonable and goes beyond a mere hunch.

The ehh noise from the defendant’s mouth is an indication he is lying. The decision is not binding any other case.

Sorry, you might disagree with the law but the questioning and search were good . Just because you disagree with the law doesn’t mean the officers were wrong.

so the correct answer is "I refuse to answer any of your questions?" (and then shut up)

 

[SomeSoldier]

so the correct answer is "I refuse to answer any of your questions?" (and then shut up)

The correct answer is to not do anything to get pulled over.

 

[Acer-m14]

The judge is wrong in his decision.

The permit makes asking the question about the presence of firearms reasonable and goes beyond a mere hunch.

The ehh noise from the defendant’s mouth is an indication he is lying. The decision is not binding any other case.

Sorry, you might disagree with the law but the questioning and search were good . Just because you disagree with the law doesn’t mean the officers were wrong.

I know this is he moved to NY .. and out of state permit was handed off ..

now what about a person just traveling and passing thru doing this .. ..?? tail light out .. ?? fail to signal on a turn .. there jammed up now .. ..

this Judge got it right .. Shall Not Infringe .. ..

 

[Marine Cpl]

Just because you disagree with the law doesn’t mean the officers were wrong.

The officers were wrong because they violated their oath regardless of what gun laws are on the books. All gun laws infringe on the 2A. The problem here is that many accept them because they have no choice not to because a corrupt judge made it so and knows the police will enforce them.

This isn't what the founders intended. You know it. I know it and the corrupt judges who allow it to stand know it.

I know you'll take this an anticop post. But if you can ever get past that, you will see that it is not. The government has gotten out of hand and the only thing keeping them that way is the police who enforce their overreaching laws that go against the Constitution.

 

[C3D]

The judge is wrong in his decision.

The permit makes asking the question about the presence of firearms reasonable and goes beyond a mere hunch.

The ehh noise from the defendant’s mouth is an indication he is lying. The decision is not binding any other case.

Sorry, you might disagree with the law but the questioning and search were good . Just because you disagree with the law doesn’t mean the officers were wrong.

The judge is right and your post is completely unsupported by any facts.

Read pages 3-4 of the decision. The judge more-or-less says the officer lied through his teeth in court. The cop's own body camera and the defendant's recording proved the opposite of what the cop said in terms of the defendant's conduct. He answered nothing suspiciously, nor was he nervous or agitated.

 

[Truebeliever]

The judge is right and your post is completely unsupported by any facts.

Read pages 3-4 of the decision. The judge more-or-less says the officer lied through his teeth in court. The cop's own body camera and the defendant's recording proved the opposite of what the cop said in terms of the defendant's conduct. He answered nothing suspiciously, nor was he nervous or agitated.

That’s the judge’s reading of the video. I have seen numerous cases where the judge misinterpretes the video as far as suspicious behavior orvwhen a cop is nervous or detects a lie.

I have made numerous arrests while talking calmly and friendly with the murder suspect or armed felon. An outside observer would not be able to see what raised my suspicion or how nervous I was .

Judges have looked at video where they thought because the police had their batons in their hands they must have been beating the plaintiff not knowing they would hold them anyway in that crowd control situation.

Just from the transcript, I could read when he lied. He hesitated when he asked if he had a gun on him. I think the judge took the question literally as physically on his person as opposed to his possession. When I ask that question do you have[gun, knife, drugs] on you” it means in your possession ( in the car , on you , whatever)

The judge was wrong. Proof the judge was wrong:

He DID have a gun “on him” . The answer was the cop was right. The cop was right. He was armed.

The “truth” answer of the defendant based on the words “on me “ or “ on you” is pointless . It’s like asking Bill Clinton what the definition of sexual relations was or was “is” is. The officer knew by his answer that there was a gun.

This looks like a judge’s version of just not wanting an normal guy to go to jail.

 

[Uzi]

so the correct answer is "I refuse to answer any of your questions?" (and then shut up)

Yes, that's correct; And you don't consent to searches or seizures if gets to that point. The police are not there to help you when they pull you over. Why offer them any more information that you don't need to do voluntary, like giving them your pistol permit for the hell of it while you're sitting inside the vehicle? The only thing that will come of that are more reasons to screw yourself over. Every situation is different, but if you're being stopped for a traffic violation, keep your mouth shut about your business and move along on your way.

 

[Marine Cpl]

That’s the judge’s reading of the video. I have seen numerous cases where the judge misinterpretes the video as far as suspicious behavior orvwhen a cop is nervous or detects a lie.

I have made numerous arrests while talking calmly and friendly with the murder suspect. An outside observer would not be able to see what raised my suspicion or how nervous I was .

Judges have looked at video where they thought because the police had their batons in their hands they must have been beating the plaintiff not knowing they would hold them anyway in that crowd control situation.

Just from the transcript, I could read when he lied. He hesitated when he asked if he had a gun on him.

The judge was wrong. And did he have a gun on him? The answer was the cop was right. The cop was right.

But the law of the books was wrong. If you can ever understand that, then you will see that what the cops did was a violation of the 2A which is wrong.

It's like you defending a cop for searching someone's notebook for the word " Fuck" because NY passed a law that says curse words are illegal, some judge upheld the unconstitutional law, and the guy that had the notebook was from out of state where it isn't illegal.

It's the same damned thing except one is a gun and the other is a word. Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. Same document. But somehow it doesn't feel the same does it. That's the problem.

 

[Acer-m14]

That’s the judge’s reading of the video. I have seen numerous cases where the judge misinterpretes the video as far as suspicious behavior orvwhen a cop is nervous or detects a lie.

I have made numerous arrests while talking calmly and friendly with the murder suspect. An outside observer would not be able to see what raised my suspicion or how nervous I was .

WTF ...

few months ago i left my friends house and heading home ,.. stop at a intersection to make a turn .. see a car go by with only one head light ..
i'm following that car now .. a mile up the road .. LEO lights up behind me .. .. i pull over .. case it was me .. nope the car with only one head light ..

but were on a curve in the road .. i could't see the the officer .. so i sat there in the truck pulled over while the officer did his job ..

then . yeah ( SHE ) walks up to my truck .. whats up .. nothing just could't see you to pull around so just waited till your safe .. Thank you she said and walked away ,.

i had at least 4 rifles in the truck and shit load of ammo at that time ..

and the truck is still loaded with rifles and a inline musket ..

 

[Truebeliever]

WTF ...

few months ago i left my friends house and heading home ,.. stop at a intersection to make a turn .. see a car go by with only one head light ..
i'm following that car now .. a mile up the road .. LEO lights up behind me .. .. i pull over .. case it was me .. nope the car with only one head light ..

but were on a curve in the road .. i could't see the the officer .. so i sat there in the truck pulled over while the officer did his job ..

then . yeah ( SHE ) walks up to my truck .. whats up .. nothing just could't see you to pull around so just waited till your safe .. Thank you she said and walked away ,.

i had at least 4 rifles in the truck and shit load of ammo at that time ..

and the truck is still loaded with rifles and a inline musket ..

So what does your story have to do with this situation. You had rifles in the back of the truck ... okay.

Different situation. This situation, the guy hands him an out of state gun permit with or instead of his license. The officer asks about a handgun possibly in his possession. The officer “ knows” he just lied. Someone lying about being armed just raises the pucker factor.

The courts recognized that and raisesvthe suspicion level almost immediately that’s why the “ the defendant didn’t lie because the gun wasn’t actually ON him” part of the ruling.

 

[Acer-m14]

So what does your story have to do with this situation. You had rifles in the back of the truck ... okay.

Different situation. This situation, the guy hands him an out of state gun permit with or instead of his license. The officer asks about a handgun possibly in his possession. The officer “ knows” he just lied. Someone lying about being armed just raises the pucker factor.

The courts recognized that and raisesvthe suspicion level almost immediately that’s why the “ the defendant didn’t lie because the gun wasn’t actually ON him” part of the ruling.

the officer could have been a ass hole .. why are you here waiting watching me .. .. get out .. .. then see all my shit in the back that is not in plain sight


i think he handed his drivers license too and the the permit .. ..

and so what if the gun was in his crotch, he had a permit which is anti 2A at the start .. MS13 have permits .. ??

 

[Truebeliever]

But the law of the books was wrong. If you can ever understand that, then you will see that what the cops did was a violation of the 2A which is wrong.

It's like you defending a cop for searching someone's notebook for the word " Fuck" because NY passed a law that says curse words are illegal, some judge upheld the unconstitutional law, and the guy that had the notebook was from out of state where it isn't illegal.

It's the same damned thing except one is a gun and the other is a word. Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. Same document. But somehow it doesn't feel the same does it. That's the problem.

I am defending cop search procedures where correct and judge was just looking for a reason to dismiss the case.

Big difference. The judge could have just dismissed the case and said “2A” right instead of stretching what happened or his interruption. I can tell just by the transcript in the article and everything is not a factually difference on the cop’s part but an interpretation of how a door closed etc or “ on you” vs “ in the car”- ( in the car was by the DA not the cop according to the article.

The judge was reaching for a reason to throw out the case. That’s okay but the saying the cop was wrong is factually incorrect and if he was some gangbanger and not a good guy , I might have a different feeling on it. Because if this guy was a convicted felon, it would still be the same search criteria .

The cop wasn’t wrong. The judge was looking for a reason other than to say 2 admendment

 

[Truebeliever]

the officer could have been a ass hole .. why are you here waiting watching me .. .. get out .. .. then see all my shit in the back that is not in plain sight


i think he handed his drivers license too and the the permit .. ..

and so what if the gun was in his crotch, he had a permit which is anti 2A at the start .. MS13 have permits .. ??

Actually they do. Do you know what a real out of state gun permit looks like? Me neither. Then he lied ( and I do understand why)

And yes they do make and sell fake carry permits.
Even out LEOSA carry papers and police ID often have 24 hr verification methods. So do a lot of permits .

 

[Acer-m14]

And yes they do make and sell fake carry permits.

gun laws invalid .. 2A ..

 

[Truebeliever]

Let me tell you a story my old partner told me.

He was walking down the street in uniform checking on his cops ( he became a supervisor) when he says he saw a man put his hand over his appendix area quickly. He could tell the guy was a tourist by how he dressed and his accent when he said “ good day officer”. He knew he had a gun. If he stopped him and patted down that area and found a gun, he would be completely right in his search. You could disagree with the law and if it was constitutional or not. But the search was good if he had done it.

The tourist went on his way and my friend said, he went on his. If it was a gangbanger or a skinhead he would have stopped him and had no problem making the arrest.

 

[Truebeliever]

gun laws invalid .. 2A ..

Dude, we can agree to disagree on that one. I’m a “shall issue” kind of guy. We can disagree.

And yes, permits are also used for the 1st admendment too. But they have to issue them. They are called parade permits for your 1st admendment right of assembly.

And I am for shall issue concealed carry, not having to register firearms, private sales , against SAFE, for full magazine capacity, against the AWB ban. Heck I would even go for NYS allowing NFA firearms but sorry I’m not pro 2A for some here.

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Truebeliever

The 2A doesn't differentiate between gangbanger and good guy. You see? There's the problem. Would you be okay if a good guy could say fuck and not be looked at but a gang banger arrested for saying fuck on an illegal anti 1A law on the books? An illegal law is an illegal law and we both know that the Sullivan Act is an illegal law. It doesn't matter who gets violated by it.

Because people like you are okay with these violations for gangbangers, the rest of us have to live with it.

I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying since you grew up with these laws and see them as normal. Your personal opinions on who should get charged and who shouldn't is a huge problem in itself.

If you can't see how corrupt the government and the court system has gotten and can't see that a certain group of people that work a certain job allow that corruption, I don't know what to tell you.

You can't honor an oath if you enforce laws that go against it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I think the problem here is that you are defending procedures on an unconstitutional law without looking at the unconstitutional law itself because the law is the law.

That's the problem with society. We've been conditioned as a whole to think that it's okay to infringe on the 2A because it's for bad people. No. We are dealing with it.

Ask the average person on the street and many on this very forum and they think it's okay for permits and other nonsense to keep the bad people from getting them. Now guess what? It's affecting us too.

That's what happens when you turn a blind eye to others.

 

[C3D]

I am defending cop search procedures where correct and judge was just looking for a reason to dismiss the case.

You are defending a pair of lying Rye City cops. Showing us the blue wall at its finest.

 

[fartgamer]

This looks like a judge’s version of just not wanting an normal guy to go to jail.

There’s some problem there?

 

[Truebeliever]

@Truebeliever

The 2A doesn't differentiate between gangbanger and good guy. You see? There's the problem. Would you be okay if a good guy could say fuck and not be looked at but a gang banger arrested for saying fuck on an illegal anti 1A law on the books? An illegal law is an illegal law and we both know that the Sullivan Act is an illegal law. It doesn't matter who gets violated by it.

Because people like you are okay with these violations for gangbangers, the rest of us have to live with it.

I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying since you grew up with these laws and see them as normal. Your personal opinions on who should get charged and who shouldn't is a huge problem in itself.

If you can't see how corrupt the government and the court system has gotten and can't see that a certain group of people that work a certain job allow that corruption, I don't know what to tell you.

You can't honor an oath if you enforce laws that go against it.

Again. We can debate if conceal carrry permits vs constitutional carry vs open carry etc.
The Sullivan law on how it’s done is the problem. That part is wrong. I have no problem with how the Utah system works.

Do you think a law requirement of notifying the officer about your armed status while operating a motor vehicle is constitutional? Or at least not being allowed to lie about it. ( plead the 5th or say none of business isn’t the same as a lie).

As far as who gets charged and doesn’t. That’s an everyday decision . What, do you want cops to be like TSA and checking the 90 year old American for shoe bombs? Or children but let the guy who fits the profile ( and not based on race) because they weren’t the random number.

The cop who got Timothy McVeigh the same thing this cop did.

The search in this case was based on behavior. The debate is how the search was conducted and not necessarily what the search was for. The cop did it right. This judge was wrong on how he came about his decision. One can tell by the fact pattern described in his decision that the cop “knew” there was a gun in the car. He followed every hoop the courts make one jump thru correctly and established probable cause to search.

And if the defendant wasn’t a “good guy” I would say appeal the decision because the judge is flat out wrong.

The cop “knew” he had a gun but didn’t just start searching the car. He had at a minimum reasonable suspicion that he had a gun. He called for backup, waited for it to arrive. He pulled him out of the car and frisked him as required by the Lopez case. He found a loaded magazine. Do you think that makes it more probable that there is a gun ( and I don’t know if magazine actually found on him was above ten rounds or not). That allowed the car search under the auto exception.

The judge could have said “ case dismissed. Reason is 2A” but he didn’t .He made up the “bad search” to let the “good guy” go.

I had let “good people “ off with a warning all the time for different things all the time. Are you saying police shouldn’t give warnings or “ look the other way” on things . That’s been in common law since the beginning. It’s how “ good people “ are determined can be the problem. Behavior based is fine. Something they choose . If I see a hypodermic needle , a is it probable that there are drugs in the car or that driver may be under the influence of that drug and further investigation is needed. Especially if he lied about having needles in the car. A diabetic would have just told the truth or said “I don’t have to talk about my medical condition.”

The judge could have made this a constitutional question. He didn’t because he knew if he did, a good guy would go to prison. The DA definitely would have appealed. The DA might not appeal because the judge’s decision is not binding on other cases.

 

[Truebeliever]

There’s some problem there?

No. I have problem of saying the search was bad when it wasn’t by others who don’t understand what happened in this case.

The “bad search “ was just the excuse but the cop did the search right in reality.

 

[Truebeliever]

You are defending a pair of lying Rye City cops. Showing us the blue wall at its finest.

Dude, go read the actual decision. The judge “disagreed “ with description of the action as opposed to the action itself. The judge is just flat out wrong or is himself lying to get to his decision. Even the article mentions they think he got the DA description of the event and the cops mixed up. And if I pull you over and as you sit in the car and I say “do you have drugs on you”- it doesn’t mean just on your person but in the car too.

As far as lying let’s give an example:

Go watch my cousin Vinny. Are the witnesses lying or misinterpretating what they saw. There is a difference.

The judge is flat out wrong.

 

[fartgamer]

“On you” means on you, words matter. “With you” would have been the proper question.