Police Run Roughshod Over Lawful Handgun Owner

[tombogan03884]

Way I see it is that if you gave him your hand and asked him to help you out of a hole it would not give him the right to finger print you, even though you held out your hand voluntarily.

[Pathfinder]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_30-2009_09_05.shtml#1251850460

 From the [1]Fayetteville Observer:

.
.
.
     Boggs complained
     to police supervisors that his new gun has never been fired. The
     ballistics test, he said, would diminish the value of the
     .45-caliber Taurus Millennium he bought last month for $399 at a
     local gun store. He said the city is violating his Fourth Amendment
     rights that protect him from unreasonable searches and seizures.
     Police defend their decade-old policy of checking most handguns
     that come into their custody - no matter the reason - to see if
     they have been used in a crime. They say public safety outweighs
     any inconvenience to the owner.

   My tentative thinking is that any such policy of test-firing all guns
   that come into police custody, with no individualized suspicion that
   the gun had been used in any misconduct, violates the Fourth Amendment
   violation. It's a search, at least as much as moving the stereo
   equipment to see the serial number in [2]Arizona v. Hicks was a
   search. (Hicks was a Justice Scalia opinion, by the way.) And it's
   hard to justify this under the special needs / administrative search
   rationale, because it does seem to be aimed at serving the [3]general
   interest in law enforcement.

Big difference between most and all. If the policy is in fact "most", this guy has a clear case for damages as they provided no probable clause to justify why this particular weapon had to be tested, especially as they were told it was new and had never been fired.

[Kid Shelleen]

Big difference between most and all. If the policy is in fact "most", this guy has a clear case for damages as they provided no probable clause to justify why this particular weapon had to be tested, especially as they were told it was new and had never been fired.

Bingo Path, you again cut to the crux of the matter.

[twyacht]

" Diminish the value of a Taurus ?"

Still trying to get that one, ..

The question is: Is it standard operating procedure at the Sheriff's office, to ballistics test all firearms that come into their possession regardless of circumstances???

I still think the LEO's were just being A holes, and for the unlawful seizure,,,that might be tougher to get damages, as they will give him his pistol back, if he hasn't gotten it back already...

The probable cause may be irrelevant if the SOP is to ballistics test ALL firearms they receive...

Thinking about the song "I fought the law, and the law won."